[bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu May 14 18:07:33 UTC 2009
I disagree, Liz. There are cases where prior rights do exist. We all have to recognize that just like the GNSO reform is highly flawed, although it has been underway even longer, the GTLD policy recommendations have many serious flaws", and inadequacies.
I already noted that I would not support the letter, and support abstention. But I respond now because I actually disagree with your point about parties having rights to object. We all have to understand that governments, as sovereign states, do not give up certain responsibilities for public policy irregardless of where they are "working"
The .tavel and .info registries launched with reserve list of country names at the second level. I see no reason for that not to provide an approach that is scalable, but there will still have to be an objection process. In my personal view.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams at mac.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:27
To: <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
Cc: <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto that others do not. An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate which with they may just happen to disagreed. Circumventing a specialised process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent.
I support the Council's position.
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757
On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote:
<GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>
More information about the Bc-gnso