I agree. The concept if "GNSO registrants" is not one I had heard of before. Alan At 29/01/2010 02:56 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

I had originally flagged that language because it was not clear to me whether the reference to GNSO included individuals, which should, if we're being accurate, then require reference to At Large.

I did not pick up on it through inadvertent oversight, not because it was not an issue.

Now that I've read the actual report, I think the language is inaccurate because the report refers to "generic name registrants". (I assume reference to generic is used in contract to cc names.)

I could live with "It might also be noted that registrants in gTLDs, the policies for which are developed by the GNSO, pay fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities."

Or, we could just take it out.

K

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:33 PM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]

Bill,

What I meant was that no objections were raised during the full Council discussion and vote.

Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR] From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 11:44 am To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>

Tim, On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

There were no questions or objections raised regarding that sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter.

On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for review, and we can tinker with it later.