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

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

:)  BTW, to be fair, the suggested wording was mine not Denise's.

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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:30 PM
> To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck; GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
> 
> hi,
> 
> In this particular case, i surrendered completed.
> 
> We now use Denise's recomended wording and speak about 'some 
> government's concerns'.  I have also, in this case, given 
> into all pressure on even removing references to the publicly 
> available copies of the draft and removed comments to the 
> effect that we were forced to remove GAC quotes due to 
> ICANN's enforcement of GAC polices on the behavior of an SO.  
> Tim also removed all mention of unmentionable GAC principles 
> in his sections of the report.
> 
> I.e I think this report has now been scrubbed clean.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 mar 2007, at 17.14, marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Haven't seen edits. My advice was; We need to remove 
> references to the 
> > GAC principles. Use the phrase at Denise Michel provided. And let's 
> > focus on improving the questions we may wish to see discussed in a 
> > dialogue w the GAC. We are in the wkg relationship w GAC 
> for the long 
> > haul and we too need to be good 'partners' in discussions.
> > So we probably could bebefit from thought and planning for the 
> > discussion in lisboa. :-) Regards, Marilyn Cade
> 
>