<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation
- From: "Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 08:10:27 -0700
What's the logic behind the registrars position? It doesn't seem to be
represented in her article. So, while I understand her POV because it's well
developed, I don't understand why the registrars are intransigent on this
subject.
Sent from +1(415)606-3733
On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue.
>
> Philip
> ----------
> i all,
>
> i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making.
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_ica
> nn_multistakeholder/
>
> i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that
> we're
> supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the
> Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions.
>
> mikey
Sent from +1(415)606-3733
On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue.
>
> Philip
> ----------
> i all,
>
> i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making.
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_ica
> nn_multistakeholder/
>
> i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that
> we're
> supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the
> Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions.
>
> mikey
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|