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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hope so Tim.  I think the answer is a definite yes if all Councilors
respond affirmatively.

Glen - Would you please keep track of this.  I think you can include Tim
and I as supporting this change and removing the brackets.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:23 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter 
> on the ARR]
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>