Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed draft message to ICANN staff
- To: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed draft message to ICANN staff
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:56:32 -0400
Your mail gives the impression that the Council created this PDP WG
for the purposes of _directly_ inserting content into DAGv4, even if
only "a placeholder in DAG4 that notes the above expression from the
VIWG pending our final report up to the GNSO Council".
Is that what you really mean?
If so, why?
Obviously, w.r.t. VI policy, DAGv4 isn't the end of the road, whether
it is called "Addenda X" or DAGv5. If there is a VI policy
recommendation informing Staff (Kurt, etc.) or the Board, it can't
happen before May 14th, and it has to happen before the DAG is
"final", or the Nairobi policy of zero (not yet clarified by Counsel)
cross ownership applies, at least to the current (hanging) round of
So what is the point of ghost writing a Mikey and Roberto missive?