<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sounds like a good clarification. I support it as well as removal of the brackets.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
----------------<BR>
Caroline Greer<BR>
Director of Policy<BR>
dotMobi<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
To: Rosette, Kristina <krosette@cov.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Jan 29 22:21:16 2010<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter on the ARR]<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Kristina's suggested rewording more precisely captures what was intended<BR>
in the language. Would anyone be opposed to replacing the previously<BR>
braketed sentence with Kristina's version? Also, would it be okay to<BR>
remove the brackets?<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina<BR>
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:57 PM<BR>
> To: GNSO Council List<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter<BR>
> on the ARR]<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> I had originally flagged that language because it was not<BR>
> clear to me whether the reference to GNSO included<BR>
> individuals, which should, if we're being accurate, then<BR>
> require reference to At Large. <BR>
><BR>
> I did not pick up on it through inadvertent oversight, not<BR>
> because it was not an issue.<BR>
><BR>
> Now that I've read the actual report, I think the language is<BR>
> inaccurate because the report refers to "generic name<BR>
> registrants". (I assume reference to generic is used in<BR>
> contract to cc names.) <BR>
><BR>
> I could live with "It might also be noted that registrants in<BR>
> gTLDs, the policies for which are developed by the GNSO, pay<BR>
> fees that fund well over 90% of ICANN's activities." <BR>
><BR>
> Or, we could just take it out.<BR>
><BR>
> K<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]<BR>
> On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:33 PM<BR>
> To: William Drake<BR>
> Cc: GNSO Council List<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter<BR>
> on the ARR]<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Bill,<BR>
><BR>
> What I meant was that no objections were raised during the<BR>
> full Council discussion and vote.<BR>
><BR>
> Tim<BR>
> <BR>
> -------- Original Message --------<BR>
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Ooops....[Re: Draft Council letter<BR>
> on the ARR]<BR>
> From: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch><BR>
> Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 11:44 am<BR>
> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
><BR>
> Tim,<BR>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> There were no questions or objections raised regarding that<BR>
> sentence so I believe it was assumed to be part of the letter.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> I disagree with the characterization and it will likely be an<BR>
> issue among other Non-contracted party councilors. <BR>
> Nonetheless, I agree that the letter should go to Council for<BR>
> review, and we can tinker with it later.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>