<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Em 18 de jun de 2018, à(s) 09:09:000, <a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" class="">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a> Wilkinson <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" class="">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> escreveu:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta charset="UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class="">Dear Rubens:</p><p class="">That is not at all how I see it today. I shall speak to the issue on this afternoon's call.<br class=""></p><p class="">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) </p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div>CW,</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You are reading too much into the report. WT3 has never discussed imposing Objection System to eval Geo Names, but assuming they did - which they didn't, but just for argument's sake - WT5 report comes later and could override it. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">whereas informed opinion in WT5 has clearly stated that would not work and supports a prior-authorisation system-</p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>WT5 is a work track, so please don't take your individual positions as WT5... that said, a prior-authorization system was exactly how the 2012 round was implemented, so it already starts as the incumbent way of doing it. </div><div>WT5 might change or not at their discretion, but they would need consensus (meaning: rough consensus) to do so. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">I can think of several other inconsistencies that I have noticed among the current drafts of the various sections of the draft Report</p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote>If they are among WTs 1 to 4, please raise them so they can be addressed either now or in the future. Even if we don't resolve the inconsistencies as that would be substantive, we could list them in the initial report, in order to have further community input on how to reconcile them. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Thankyou for your attention</p><p class="">Chrisotopher</p><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div id="ox-a2e78c7f71" style="word-wrap: break-word;" class="">El 17 de junio de 2018 a las 23:23 Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" class="">rubensk@nic.br</a>> escribió:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><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 class=""><br class=""></div>Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically. <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><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 class=""><br class=""></div>This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rubens</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>