Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

It does seem a pity that this had to be taken out of the draft letter...

Stéphane


Le 28/05/09 21:17, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Especially since I explicitly mentioned in conversation that this was
> not to be assumed.
> But as was said, the fact that we did not mention the subject is
> significant and meaning can be taken from its absence.
> 
> As for clarifying, I do think it is something we will need to do in
> the meeting with the GAC.
> I am not sure I see a way where  as a council we could do so before
> hand.
> Of course once the comment period is open, individual constituencies
> and participants in the GNSO can voice their opinion.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 28 May 2009, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
>> The GAC final letter to the Board regarding geographic names at the
>> second level was posted a short while ago:
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf
>> .
>> 
>> I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands
>> that our proposal in relation to geographic names at the second
>> level . . is acceptable to the GNSO . . . "  What am I missing
>> here?  What in our letter led to this conclusion?  We didn't even
>> address geographic names at the second level let along say that the
>> GAC proposal was acceptable.
>> 
>> Do we need to clarify this?
>> 
>> Chuck
>