Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:07:26 -0400
On 17 jul 2007, at 15.05, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It seems to me that this wording for IG P might change the process
what we envisioned. This would put ICANN in a role of determining
whether or not 'substantial opposition' existed, something that I
believe we wanted the expert panel to do. After I look at all the
comments made so far on this, I will try to take another crack at
rewording. I think we are going in the right direction.
can you also may look at moving some of the definitions Philip
suggested from the recommendation to 20? I only thought of doing
that after i had already sent the message out, but on rereading the
new recommended 20 and on considering to add an implementation
guideline, they struck me as more Implementation guideline then policy.
On 17 jul 2007, at 15.18, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It may be a little premature to determine the level of support
think several of us are still trying to improve the wording. I
that we wait until at least Wednesday before determining the level of
Definitely. We have a few days yet, and can even do a phone call
tomorrow if there is interest. I am willing if any others are.
i will put out an updated table just before the meeting capturing any
changes on this or 6, but will wait for the meeting to determine
initial level of support is and whether there is enough support to
replace Rec 20 and to add IG P.