ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal

  • To: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:54:54 -0400

Thanks Mawaki.  Does Philip's suggested changes cover this adequately?

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 privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:15 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> 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 worth considering:
> 
> *) 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) gTLD.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- "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 our 
> > 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 
> privileged, 
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> > Any
> > 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
> > Sheppard
> >     Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:34 AM
> >     To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >     Subject: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording
> > Proposal
> >     
> >     
> >     I like Chuck's new approach very much and support the
> > objective.
> >     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
> > out
> > these three.
> >      
> >     Does this work for everyone ?
> >      
> >     Philip
> >     -----------------
> >      
> > 
> > 
> 
> 




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>