RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree. The concept if "GNSO registrants" is not one I had heard of before.

Alan

At 29/01/2010 02:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> I had originally flagged that language because it was not clear to me
> whether the reference to GNSO included individuals, which should, if
> we're being accurate, then require reference to At Large.
>
> I did not pick up on it through inadvertent oversight, not because it
> was not an issue.
>
> Now that I've read the actual report, I think the language is inaccurate
> because the report refers to "generic name registrants". (I assume
> reference to generic is used in contract to cc names.)
>
> I could live with "It might also be noted that registrants in gTLDs, the
> policies for which are developed by the GNSO, pay fees that fund well
> over 90% of ICANN's activities."
>
> Or, we could just take it out.
>
> K
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:33 PM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the
> ARR]
>
>
> 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.