[council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names

[Avri Doria]

hi,

This has been done already.  I sent him a message letting him know  
that I mentioned our conversation in today's meeting.

a.

On 28 May 2009, at 15:27, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> At a minimum, it seems like a communication should be sent to Janis so
> that he is not blindsided in Sydney and so that he has the opportunity
> to make a correction.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:18 PM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>