<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head><body><p>Dear Rubens:</p><p>That is not at all how I see it today. I shall speak to the issue on this afternoon's call.<br></p><p>To take one current example, we have Work Track 3, apparently intent on imposing an Objection Based system on the whole of the PDP (Section 1.8.1) whereas informed opinion in WT5 has clearly stated that would not work and supports a prior-authorisation system-</p><p>I can think of several other inconsistencies that I have noticed among the current drafts of the various sections of the draft Report</p><p>Thankyou for your attention</p><p>Chrisotopher</p><blockquote type="cite"><div id="ox-a2e78c7f71" style="word-wrap: break-word;" class="">El 17 de junio de 2018 a las 23:23 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> escribió:<br><br><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div class="">On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, <a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" class="">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a> Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" class="">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="ox-a2e78c7f71-Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Dear Ken Stubbs:</p><p class="">Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons.</p><p class="">1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><br class="">2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically. <br class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><br class="">3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></body></html>