Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
- To: "Liz Williams " <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>, "philip.sheppard@xxxxxx " <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
- From: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:07:33 +0000
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",
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
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:27
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
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.
+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>