<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:32:57 -0700
- Cc: "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.2.05
Bill,
What I meant was that no objections were raised during the full Council
discussion and vote.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the
ARR]
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 11:44 am
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tim,
On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
There were no questions or objections raised regarding that
sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue
among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that
the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it
later.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|