Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
Hi,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. a.
On 20 jul 2007, at 14.30, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I did not understand it that way and I believe when I raised it thatPhilip was okay with the change; he is the one who had eliminated it inhis rewrite of my proposal. I was modifying and taking notes onPhilip's version during the meeting and I changed it to the version thatused 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. Anyunauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Ifyou 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 Hi, 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. a. On 20 jul 2007, at 13.35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:The objector must provide verifiable evidence that it is an establishedinstitution ofthe community and that there will be detriment to the legitimate rights or interests of the objecting community.