Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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