At a minimum, it seems like a communication should be sent to Janis so that he is not blindsided in Sydney and so that he has the opportunity to make a correction. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:18 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
Hi,
Especially since I explicitly mentioned in conversation that this was not to be assumed. But as was said, the fact that we did not mention the subject is significant and meaning can be taken from its absence.
As for clarifying, I do think it is something we will need to do in the meeting with the GAC. I am not sure I see a way where as a council we could do so before hand. Of course once the comment period is open, individual constituencies and participants in the GNSO can voice their opinion.
a.
On 28 May 2009, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
The GAC final letter to the Board regarding geographic names at the second level was posted a short while ago:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf
.
I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands that our proposal in relation to geographic names at the second level . . is acceptable to the GNSO . . . " What am I missing here? What in our letter led to this conclusion? We didn't even address geographic names at the second level let along say that the GAC proposal was acceptable.
Do we need to clarify this?
Chuck