<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-whois-study] working GAC questions into our hypothesis table
- To: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] working GAC questions into our hypothesis table
- From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:46:05 -0400
Eric, you demonstrate the talent to 'tease' blood from a stone!
In this case I think we should consider the entire GAC letter in order
to infer a hypothesis from their stated questions.
In any event, we will ask the GAC to confirm/correct our proposed
hypotheses.
Whether we can tease them into a timely response...I have my doubts!
--Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:32 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes,Chuck; Liz Gasster
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-study] working GAC questions into our
hypothesis table
Steve DelBianco wrote:
>
> Eric's proposed hypos for GAC 5, 6, and 3 are technically correct
> hypotheses, but they don't convey anything about ICANN policy
> implications.
>
I didn't try to infer motive, only the weakest hypothesis I could tease
out from the set statements.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|