Hi Lesley,
We’re redrafting the letter ‘toned down’. And
picking up the ‘developing a mutual understanding’ point.
We can’t offer a joint PDP because such a beast does not
exist under the by laws. We have endeavoured to involve them as much as
possible in the current pdp and they have a number of representatives on the
WG.
New draft on its way later today.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
au Domain Administration Ltd
Important Notice - This email may contain
information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is
intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you
have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this
message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this
email.
From: Lesley Cowley
[mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2010 04:34
To: Chris Disspain
Cc: ccNSO Council
Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] letter to GAC re IDN ccTLD GAC Principles
Hi Chris,
The letter
feels a little on the aggressive side to me - particularly as the ccNSO has
traditionally had a very supportive and constructive relationship with GAC
members. Perhaps some of the language/key words could be toned down a little
without losing the overall intent.
On the way
forward, I suggest that we might also invite the GAC to make a presentation to
the ccNSO (or as part of our joint session), which we could use to identify the
issues that will need further consideration. We could also offer a joint PDP
perhaps. My point is that there must be several ways in which we develop a
better (mutual) understanding of the issues and how best to resolve them.
Regards,
Lesley
owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on
19/01/2010 15:00:10:
> Attached is the draft letter to the GAC
re their IDN ccTLD Principles.
>
> Please provide any comments by Noon UTC
on Thursday.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4787 (20100119) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com