NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Date:
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:07:13 -0500
Reply-To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organizations
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines) 
On 19 Dec 2011, at 03:10, David Cake wrote:

> 	The GNSO should absolutely not throw this issue in with RC and IOC issues IMO, and should come out fairly strongly against this idea that the Reserved Name should be expanded on a general public interest idea.


Why not? Aren't they all similar/equivalent as either good or bad ideas?  
I would think at the least that the points under discussion would be similar.

avri

ATOM RSS1 RSS2