Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting timing
Thanks, Avri. Yes, NCUC will submit Minority Reports on Rec. #6 and #20 next week.
Robin Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,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.Again, thanks. a. On 13 jul 2007, at 15.01, Mawaki Chango wrote:Avri, 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. Mawaki --- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:On 13 jul 2007, at 13.06, Mawaki Chango wrote:Clarified version: An application claiming the intent to service/target aspecificcommunity 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 would remain as long as rec #20 objections were not limited to technical and legal issues. thanks a.