Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
> No, they're all big ones. It would be nice Paul, if you could
> give us your thoughts on these topics even if they're only
> your personal observations. It might make things easier in Berlin
> if we all knew where we stood on the issues when we got there.
Nothing to
Hello Paul,
Thank you for your response, and thank you
for your re-assurances.
As you probably know, my involvement with ICANN
has been focused on questions about process,
fairness, and minority representation.
Consistent with that focus, I have some questions
that have yet to be addressed
>Second, how will the GAC make recommendations to
>ICANN on the WIPO draft? Originally, I had asked
>why the only presentation on the WIPO report was
>from WIPO itself. Based on your reply, however,
>it appears that the members of GAC will bring
>forward questions from their local stakeholders
At 05:16 PM 5/7/99 , Michael Sondow wrote:
>Jay Fenello a écrit:
>> >http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gacmtg2_agenda.htm
>> >
>> >DRAFT AGENDA
>> >
>> >7.Report from USA and ITU on applicability of specific business rules /
>> >regimes to ccTLD's which are classified as "open" or "restricted"
>>
>> Do
Jay, Paul and Esther,
Yes, Paul, Esther and Becky, whey were Jays question and comments
removed from the URL listed below? Is there some embarrassment in that an honest
answer is not available or otherwise unknown? Why not answer Jays
questions, directly this time BTW, if you please. >:) Ar
Hello Esther and Paul,
If I may be so bold as to ask,
what's going on now?
Not only have my questions gone
un-answered, but the GAC agenda
has now been removed from the
URL below.
This is all very curious, hardly an
example of "open, bottom-up policy
making" as described by Becky Burr
las
Esther and all,
Well this is good to hear, and very properly politically put, if I do say so
myself. >;) None the less the gist of Jays questions/concerns are not
directly answered by your reply here. The concern, and a legitimate one
given the ICANN Interim Boards actions to date, is how ar
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 2:59 PM
To: Jay Fenello
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: GAC Draft Agenda
Jay -
The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> Jay -
>
> The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.* (And
> it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursuant to our
> own bylaws, with input ("recommendations") from the GAC, from you, from DNSO
> members, fr
Thanks Esther . . . and Hello Paul,
Could you help clarify these questions?
Thanks in advance,
Jay.
At 02:58 PM 5/6/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>Jay -
>
>The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.* (And
>it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursu
Jay -
The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.* (And
it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursuant to our
own bylaws, with input ("recommendations") from the GAC, from you, from DNSO
members, from anyone else... Please check with the GAC itself
11 matches
Mail list logo
