ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]

  • To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice recommendation]
  • From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:31:13 +0000

 

I have reviewed the minutes but not the recording.  I understand the
question, but it may be that we disagree that the only options are to
proceed full steam ahead or bring the recommendation to a halt.  

 

The substance of my point is that reversal of notice provisions which
are currently in the agreement was not part of the task force terms of
reference.  Thus, I'm uncomfortable with the approach of making a
request to put this issue before the task force, given the work load we
already have tasked to us.  

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:18 PM
To: Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note to council on Notice
recommendation]

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

 

On 16/08/2005 11:57 AM Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie) noted that;

> I would say that any time an issue is raised after a final

> recommendation that attempts to reverse a task force proposal, without

> advance notice, without adequate opportunity for input by the

> constituencies, and legal opinions of individuals who are not on the

> task force and who did not comment on the recommendation are invoked
as

> a basis for reversal, there is bound to be confusion.  So yes, I guess

> we can agree there is some confusion here.  

 

I don't think anyone is looking for a reversal of these recommendations

- - at least I'm not. I'm simply requesting, based on comments made by

members of your constituency and others, that the GNSO seek to

understand the implications of its actions prior to implementation.

 

I'm not sure if you have reviewed the recording or transcripts of our

call or not, but there is no hidden agenda here. I have questions and

I'm seeking answers. Until we have those answers, I don't think it's

responsible for us to proceed full steam ahead.

- --

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      -rwr

 

 

 

Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross

Skydasher: A great way to start your day

My weblog: http://www.byte.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

 

iD8DBQFDAhG+6sL06XjirooRAkoEAJ9dPGZTDLkO69ro/QuUtJItqYydWACgiI8P

2lLOtPuGyvlM9f3oVpPCwag=

=eZTz

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy