RE: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Follow-up to 23 June

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

It is important to note that we are not suggesting that strings be
objected for nonlegal reasons in recommendations 3 and 6.  It is also
important to recognize that we are connecting to international law and
not national law with the exception of the laws that an individual
registry would have to follow.

The last recommendation (19, formerly 20) is a different case b

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-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Follow-up to 23 June
> 
> But there isn't consensus that strings should be rejected for 
> non-legal and non-technical reasons.  
> 
> So perhaps we need to reach agreement on this point before we 
> do the word smithing.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:
> 
> >Lets not lose focus on the intent of recommendation 20 and 
> our attempt 
> >to clarify the wording.
> >
> >It is NOT about:
> >- local jurisdictions, national laws etc
> >
> >It is about:
> >- sector or community based objection.
> >
> >Proposed edits which drive a coach and horses through the original 
> >intent are somewhat disapointing to see at this closing stage of our 
> >lengthy community based bottom-up dialogue.
> >
> >Philip
> >  
> >
> 
>