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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The alternative language Kristina suggests sounds fine to me. Since it
is just a clarifying of what was intended anyway, can we get by with
confirming via the list that there are no further objections?

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the
ARR]
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 1:56 pm
To: "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.