Re: [council] NC agenda item 3 (revised) GAC statement

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

to elaborate more milton ...

with respect to #2 (i.e. "that retrospect action of the kind GAC seeks..")
... it appears to me  not to do
much, and is somewhat unnecessarily confrontational.

The GAC was clear that they were only interested in .info because it's
unique. Their communique was focused specifically on that .

Second, their communique references the wipo-2 work -- so
the issue raised in the revised nc resolution "retrospective action ....in
other domain names ... damaging to suppliers and confusing to users" is a
WIPO issue that seems to me the Communique references part of the larger
issue before the WIPO.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <kstubbs@digitel.net>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [council] NC agenda item 3 (revised) GAC statement


> Ken:
> I don't think it's fair to complain about "discussion at such a
> late hour" when the basic resolution was circulated over
> a week ago and the final revisions were made in response
> to an ICANN management report released today.
>
> If the DNSO wants to participate in policy making
> it has to be able to react to such situations. I think
> Philip's response has been as timely and responsible
> as possible under the circumstances.
>
> I find the language exceedingly diplomatic and gentle.
> If you disagree, look at some of my old
> posts on this topic. ;-)
>
> --MM
>
>
>