Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting timing

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 a
> > > specific
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > would
> > > remain as long as rec #20 objections were not limited to
> > > technical
> > > and legal issues.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > a.