ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -

  • To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:54:00 -0400


Yes, I think i caught the changes to detriment from material harm, though I have left the issue open for review.

But I guess we have different understandings from the meeting. I am hoping Liz can clarify from her notes, otherwise if the recording doesn't clear it up, we may need to review at the next meeting. I will not be able to listen to the recording until sometime Monday as I am off to visit family this weekend.

I have updated the table to indicate the open issue.


Attachment: PDP-Dec05-recommendations-07Jul20-1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

On 20 jul 2007, at 14.30, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

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.

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: 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.

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