<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] GAC UDRP position
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] GAC UDRP position
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:48:27 +0200
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <CD4F111D2074914097F3C792858B90550237C76E@MSG-MB-01.icent.ic.gc.ca>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Councillors,
Please find below a message Heather sent me. I asked if I could share it with
the Council and she responded that was fine.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
> De : <Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx>
> Objet : GNSO call/UDRP
> Date : 22 septembre 2011 04:03:05 HAEC
> À : <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dear Stephane
>
> One of my GAC members has alerted me to the blog post cited below, asserting
> that the GAC position on the UDRP review was somehow drafted by the law firm,
> Covington and Burling. In the event this issue might be raised during your
> Council call on September 22, I felt it important to assure you that the GAC
> position was in fact drafted by a small group of GAC members, circulated to
> the entire GAC list, and edited by a number of GAC members before being
> finalized. It is my understanding that one of the GAC members involved in
> the initial drafting exercise did consult with domestic stakeholders and
> accepted a proposed edit from a lawyer with Covington and Burling to insert a
> direct reference to the Board’s rationale for approving the new gTLD program,
> with a cite to that report. For reasons I do not understand, the tag to the
> firm remained in subsequent versions of the draft and now appears in the
> final version as well. That should not be understood by the GNSO Council to
> suggest that the firm drafted the GAC text. Thank you for your attention to
> this matter.
>
> Best regards,
> Heather
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|