RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:30:23 -0400
I did not understand it that way and I believe when I raised it that
Philip was okay with the change; he is the one who had eliminated it in
his rewrite of my proposal. I was modifying and taking notes on
Philip's version during the meeting and I changed it to the version that
used the term 'harm'; we later then decided to take the approach of
using the term 'detriment' so the sentence needed to be reworded to be
consistent with that.
"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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:19 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
> Importance: High
> I thought that this phrase had been eliminated because the
> content was already covered below. I deleted that sentence
> as it was listed as one of the options under the process heading.
> Liz, can you confirm from your notes?
> Otherwise, we will need to go back to the recording to
> determine what the decision was.
> Thanks for bringing this up.
> On 20 jul 2007, at 13.35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > The objector must
> > provide verifiable evidence that it is an established
> institution of
> > the community and that there will be detriment to the legitimate
> > rights or interests of the objecting community.