[council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names

To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:25:08 -0400
List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcnfwaFZcJYPeJyjQ2e9VhCxfqmUaA==
Thread-topic: GAC Letter on Geographic Names

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
  - From: Avri Doria

Prev by Date: Re: [council] use of adobe connect in council meetings
Next by Date: [council] MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 28 May, 2009
Previous by thread: Re: [council] GAC letter on Geographic Names
Next by thread: Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread