ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-et] Affiliation issue

  • To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-et] Affiliation issue
  • From: "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:41:41 -0000

So, that's a third ambiguity! 
I am not sure about archives but in any case, we are just clarifying
affiliations which should be obvious to all, as well as our
understanding of the rules.
Happy to go 'off list' though for any sensitive issues.
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 09 March 2010 13:36
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: Gnso-et@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-et] Affiliation issue
On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:

An issue coming up in our Registry discussion around RT candidates - 
It seems that there is some ambiguity as regards affiliation within the
applications - some people, in answering the GNSO question 'are you
representing any other entity?' could be seen, in saying 'no etc etc',
to be (1) simply stating that they will represent the GNSO as a whole
and not a particular SG (as is proper) or (2) stating their desire to be
That was Kristina's language, I thought it was legal speak about
representing a client, so neither of your two choices

Case in point is Mark Bohannon who, FYI, the RySg is considering as a
member of the Commercial Stakeholder Group
I thought he was too
this is a publicly archived list?  do we want to talk about candidates
I have a pressing question about the categorization of another, will go

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy