[CPWG] Policy Discussion at 65 - Geo names?

[Yrjö Länsipuro]

Yes, we need an internal discussion before engaging with the GAC. It is not likely that we reach full consensus among ourselves, nor will there be a full consensus within the GAC. What I hope for is that we can identify elements of the geonames issue that we agree upon internally, and find out    what our  GAC interlocutors think about them in intersessional discussion between ICANN65 and 66.

Best,

Yrjö



________________________________
From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 7:30 PM
To: cpwg at icann.org
Subject: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Policy Discussion at 65 - Geo names?


Sounded like we needed a discussion on geo names prior to making commitments with the GAC. Should that be our discussion at 65? Marita (perhaps with Greg) are you able to lead such a discussion?



Jonathan Zuck |  Executive Director  |  Innovators Network

jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |

[cid:image001.png at 01D2AEED.C7EA7800]




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190607/e8e64862/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11230 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190607/e8e64862/image001.png>