<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-dow123] DRAFT redline of recommendation 2
- To: Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] DRAFT redline of recommendation 2
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:52:51 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 26/04/2005 11:43 AM Bret Fausett noted that;
> 4. Finally, I recall the General Counsel saying on our recent call
> that ICANN did not require registrars to violate local law. Why doesn't
> that statement obviate the need for any additional work on this point?
I haven't yet had a chance to read the TF2 output, but note that this is
the primary driver behind my questions. Assuming that the recommendation
is in scope, I'm not sure that the work at hand is useful if John's
opinion is well-founded. Is there anything in the TF2 work (or any other
work for that matter) that indicates that it isn't?
- -rwr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
iD8DBQFCbmPT6sL06XjirooRAoxnAJ97cxtkgazIEH9GbVlFjU5bRSZ4+gCfSroT
hw5JDyCr4x/cafH3wK7vd0M=
=yd8j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|