RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My personal opinion is as follows.  I don't see any problem referring to
the issues but don't think it is a good idea to use direct quotes from
the GAC draft as appeats to have been done in the three bullets in
Section 1.1.  I also have reservations about specifically referring to
the GAC draft.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
> 
> hi,
> 
> After sending this I received an update with comments from 
> Marilyn Cade that had not been included in earlier versions.  
> I have cut those comments in.
> 
> There is still a difference of opinion on the subgroup in 
> terms of adding a discussion of 'some government's concerns' 
> versus having no discussion at all of their concerns.  The 
> version attached here still contains a discussion of 'some 
> government's concerns.'  That is section is, however, now bracketed.
> 
> a.
> 
>