Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I disagree, Liz. There are cases where prior rights do exist. We all have to 
recognize that just like the GNSO reform is highly flawed, although it has been 
underway even longer, the GTLD policy recommendations have many serious flaws", 
and inadequacies. 

I already noted that I would not support the letter, and support abstention. 
But I respond now because I actually disagree with your point about parties 
having rights to object. We all have to understand that governments, as 
sovereign states, do not give up certain responsibilities for public policy 
irregardless of where they are "working" 

The .tavel and .info registries launched with reserve list of country names at 
the second level. I see no reason for that not to provide an approach that is 
scalable, but there will still have to be an objection process. In my personal 
view.  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:27 
To: <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Cc: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC


Philip


The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto 
that others do not.  An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate 
which with they may just happen to disagreed.  Circumventing a specialised 
process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent.


I support the Council's position.


Liz



 
...


Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757


 


On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote:
<GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>