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

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

To continue . . . 

In the case of the last recommendation (19), I personally believe that
it is important to address the case of 'substantial' opposition from a
'targeted' community.  I fully understand that we need to work the
language and that it may end up with a recommendation that may not be
tied to law or technical requirements, but I am convinced that it is
important.

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: Gomes, Chuck 
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:28 AM
> To: 'robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Follow-up to 23 June
> 
> 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
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> >