RE: [council] Re: Any (other) AoB issues for Melbourne???

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

ok with me

peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Erica Roberts
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:47 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; Paul M. Kane; council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Any (other) AoB issues for Melbourne???


Looks good to me.
erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
To: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:30 AM
Subject: [council] Re: Any (other) AoB issues for Melbourne???


> Paul and NC,
> thanks for the prompt. It seems we should add under AOB for the NC agenda
in
> Melbourne:
>
> 1.  Verisign agreement
> - policy aspects of dot org proposal
> - id of other key policy issues
> - role of NC
>
> 2. New registry contracts
>
> 3. Non ICANN TLDs
> - id of key policy issue
> - role of ISPs
> - role of NC
>
> Philip.
>
>