<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
- To: ross@tucows.com, ga@dnso.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:58:47 EDT
- CC: mcade@att.com, roessler@does-not-exist.org, Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr, RJS@lojo.co.nz, synthesis@videotron.ca, nick.wood@nom-iq.com, grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz, crusso@verisign.com, mcf@uwm.edu, orobles@nic.mx, james.love@cptech.org
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Ross,
In the document that is not "your draft", it is written:
"The Task Force suggests that, after further examination, that apparent
authority is a well-defined legal concept and the lack of specific definition
within the relevant body of ICANN policy should not be a barrier to the work
of this task force to make policy recommendations."
Why continue to be obtuse? Is there a particular reason why you will not
provide a specific definition? Further, what problems do you have with the
Australian model as cited?
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|