A very useful clarification.
Thank you Avri.
Stéphane
Le 02/09/09 13:22, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I did not write that carefully enough.
>
> They did not say do ours or else. Or any version of that.
>
> What they said was closer to: that for it to be worth a Monday slot to
> them, it had to be a topic that was on their plate for this meeting.
> So either Fast Track issues or new gTLD issues.
>
> If we wanted to do something else then schedule for Thursday when they
> have already finished the bulk of the work that they need to do.
>
> Similar to Kristina, they did not feel that the topic last time, while
> perhaps interesting in itself, contributed to the work they had to
> get done. I think the issues is more one of focus.
>
> Note, I had intended my message as an offlist message to Chuck. I had
> not planned to give my view in the discussion - but then I sent it to
> the wrong address. Had I been writing it to the list, I would have
> been more careful to try and make sure I did not put in the wrong
> nuance about the GAC position. Fortunately I do not think I
> embarrassed myself as badly as we sometime do when we send a message
> to the wrong address.
>
> Hopefully the GAC will forgive me for the inappropriate implications I
> enabled.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 2 Sep 2009, at 11:49, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>
>> Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run
>> our
>> topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO
>> sessions they
>> were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it.
>> Any idea
>> why the apparent change of attitude?
>
>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature