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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds like a good clarification. I support it as well as removal of the 
brackets. 

Thanks. 

----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 
dotMobi 


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Rosette, Kristina <krosette@xxxxxxx>; GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Jan 29 22:21:16 2010
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]


Kristina's suggested rewording more precisely captures what was intended
in the language.  Would anyone be opposed to replacing the previously
braketed sentence with Kristina's version?  Also, would it be okay to
remove the brackets?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:57 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter 
> on the ARR]
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>