Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting timing
- To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting timing
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:06:20 -0400
Thank you for the clarification. Coming to the end of the
discussions to find full consensus as we are, and given the outcome
of the meeting this morning, I felt it necessary to ask explicitly.
On 13 jul 2007, at 15.01, Mawaki Chango wrote:
Whenever NCUC make known a clear position and that position
happens to change at any given time, I'd certainly specify so
before stating the new position.
My posting you're referring to was purposefully preceded by the
following caveat: "If the current wording is the ultimate one
the committee decides to retain, I'd support your suggestion
(especially that it is so simple to make it clear in the
recommendation).” I meant to say that as things stand now, I
would personally agree with Ray that the recommendation would
gain in clarity with his proposal (I rewrote the rec. because he
only roughly sketched the intended wording.)
My questions, which Ray was reacting to, were originally posted
right after our call on June 7. Nobody considered addressing
them at the time, although my hope was that a timely
clarification could have helped develop a consensus (while
adding clarity by itself,) or at least try to do so. That was my
personal opinion in the heat of the committee discussions, never
submitted for consideration to my constituency whose position
has not changed as far as I know. I just assumed that there was
nothing wrong in rendering the community the service of making a
recommendation technically clearer.
--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 jul 2007, at 13.06, Mawaki Chango wrote:
An application claiming the intent to service/target a
community may be rejected if it is determined that there is
substantial opposition to it from significant established
institutions within the targeted community."
I think this is much clearer, thus, better.
Are you indicating that this phrasing has NCUC approval?
As I understood from this morning's meeting, NCUC's concern
remain as long as rec #20 objections were not limited to
and legal issues.