Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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.

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
> >
> > 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 established
> > institution of
> > > the community and that there will be detriment to the legitimate
> > > rights or interests of the objecting community.