ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
  • From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:20:56 +0900
  • Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=S3Zc43UBI4fXgyDcfrbnwTDlbgnKuMknTXz4WYLKofQ=; b=lIdjr6abf3cdvDx+HwxQEbu++MG882JT+2N3zjxM2ZoLcHbmg6CX2s8O4Jy/3Me8lo ZKOSC6GqGhVywfBPaEJG7j3Gn5soHLw9BclBEZQU0H1WwueM16XSFkxjbiK2l0rMC2Ya fshIlSudpcMtBVl2i/DoBW+KXVcQqk3hPN4Ig=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=BvopJ+lJJc87PJFn1E9h1bGbheLA/oHHhzuHtMoQCa2B8iZmGkhZOppfUnyolddXOP VQ4VpAI9U+9LdJP6hJExLtdkM4r7EB05dbF7LEoayZlLty0gGNjbDg+xTXpbl3vZ/Fcc 7kFwrk8GqkCQwshJZlShEhoouHpXxDyEIBT2E=
  • In-reply-to: <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA706E43F0F78@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <C9CB3A65.6803%lesley@nominet.org.uk> <8C858E62-4435-40D8-A222-8F74457EDEAF@indom.com> <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA706E43F0F6D@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <BANLkTi=x6Q4MBhMW94hzh3EC93M4YX79ag@mail.gmail.com> <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA706E43F0F78@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2011/4/14 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>

> Rafik,
>
>
>
> As much as I love being told I am “incoherent”, I have to admit I don’t
> understand your response.  Literally, I have no idea what you are trying to
> say.
>
>
>

I said "incoherent position" that is quite different than calling you
"incoherent". just for clarification.


>   If you recall during the Council meeting, I wanted to remove the words
> “forward to the Board” from the resolution in this case, because the ccNSO
> had not yet had a chance to weigh in on it.  I was afraid that they may not
> agree with everything and if they did not, then we would have to work things
> out with the ccNSO to ensure consistency. Once we had a report that we could
> both support, only then should we forward to the Board.  To do otherwise
> would be for the GNSO to forward 1 version of the report, the ccNSO would
> forward another version, and somehow we would expect the Board to resolve
> the differences.   To me, that seems unworkable and contrary to bottom-up
> policy making.
>
>
and how we will fix that? it is deadlock otherwise we are prioritizing the
response of SO than other .

Rafik
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>