[council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu May 28 19:17:49 UTC 2009
Hi,
Especially since I explicitly mentioned in conversation that this was
not to be assumed.
But as was said, the fact that we did not mention the subject is
significant and meaning can be taken from its absence.
As for clarifying, I do think it is something we will need to do in
the meeting with the GAC.
I am not sure I see a way where as a council we could do so before
hand.
Of course once the comment period is open, individual constituencies
and participants in the GNSO can voice their opinion.
a.
On 28 May 2009, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> The GAC final letter to the Board regarding geographic names at the
> second level was posted a short while ago: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf
> .
>
> I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands
> that our proposal in relation to geographic names at the second
> level . . is acceptable to the GNSO . . . " What am I missing
> here? What in our letter led to this conclusion? We didn't even
> address geographic names at the second level let along say that the
> GAC proposal was acceptable.
>
> Do we need to clarify this?
>
> Chuck
More information about the council
mailing list