RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
There were one or two things in my previous mail you haven't
included in this version but, I'd only like to remind you of the
following item (to be refined) that you've found interesting and
*) the extent of the harm to the community, particularly in the
case of strings based on proper names when the introduction of
the proposed gTLD will leave no option to the targeted community
in terms of a fully equivalent identifier to chose as (future)
--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I finally found some time to respond in more detail to
> Philip's new
> wording; my comments are highlighted in the attached file.
> Note that
> the file also includes changes recommended by those on the
> Rec.20 call
> that occurred earlier today. Hopefully this will faciliate
> discussion in the full committee call tomorrow. Please feel
> free to
> comment in the meantime.
> 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
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> 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."
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:34 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording
> I like Chuck's new approach very much and support the
> On re-reading all our efforts I see we are all confusing:
> - an objective
> - a process
> - guidelines / definitions.
> Taking Chuck's lead I attach a new proposal which separates
> these three.
> Does this work for everyone ?