ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

  • To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
  • From: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:08:13 +0100
  • Cc: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <CF3B5C0CE7094B39A0F97AEF036A788B@WUKPC>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1DFD7D64@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <A75DF158AEC241CDB577CA19F0D2C266@WUKPC> <7eadee26d7804b24a877b2ba0a7d4c80@toast.net> <56A1181F.80205@julf.com> <CF3B5C0CE7094B39A0F97AEF036A788B@WUKPC>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
Wolf-Ulrich,

> you're right, there is not overall support; but the reverse that the GNSO
> overall doesn't support rec 11 is also not correct.

I agree - or, rather, to be really precise, we don't actually know
how strong or weak the support is. We know not everybody supports
it, and we know not everybody is against it. Therefore I support
the suggestion Ed proposed to have a vote to find out the exact
degree of support.

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