ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:02:49 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <5506EE41-1C7A-42A4-82A5-B6D32CBED434@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcorxUpiGVNP4vs/LkmmqLQTiWcUzA==
  • Thread-topic: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting
  • User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

A very useful clarification.

Thank you Avri.


Le 02/09/09 13:22, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi,
> I did not write that carefully enough.
> They did not say do ours or else. Or any version of that.
> What they said was closer to: that for it to be worth a Monday slot to
> them, it had to be a topic that was on their plate for this meeting.
> So either Fast Track issues or new gTLD issues.
> If we wanted to do something else then schedule for Thursday when they
> have already finished the bulk of the work that they need to do.
> Similar to Kristina, they did not feel that the topic last time, while
> perhaps interesting in itself,  contributed to the work they had to
> get done.  I think the issues is more one of focus.
> Note, I had intended my message as an offlist message to Chuck. I had
> not planned to give my view in the discussion - but then I sent it to
> the wrong address.  Had I been writing it to the list, I would have
> been more careful to try and make sure I did not put in the wrong
> nuance about the GAC position.  Fortunately I do not think I
> embarrassed myself as badly as we sometime do when we send a message
> to the wrong address.
> Hopefully the GAC will forgive me for the inappropriate implications I
> enabled.
> a.
> On 2 Sep 2009, at 11:49, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>> Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run
>> our
>> topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO
>> sessions they
>> were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it.
>> Any idea
>> why the apparent change of attitude?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>