RE: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:38:36 -0700
- Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.1.10
Missed this. But even so, I would still prefer Accountability as the
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council]Status/report from ACSO meeting
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 6:22 am
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
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
> 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?