[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I would like to add that while the intention is to submit this unless  
there are objections voice by council members, I think it would be  
best if as many as can make a active declaration of support for the  
statement, assuming you support it.

I add my thanks to Philip and am comfortable supporting this version.

a.


On 28 nov 2007, at 15.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>
> Excellent job Philip. Thanks.
>
> I am very comfortable supporting this version.
>
> I suggest that if there are any objections to any substantive items in
> the document, they need to be communicated NLT COB on Thursday, 29
> November.  If none are received, Glen should go ahead and post our
> comments on Friday, 30 November.  If there are any substantive
> objections to any items, then I think we have no other choice but to
> delete those items.  Minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) should be
> okay if there are any.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM
>> To: 'Council GNSO'
>> Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
>>
>>
>> Thank for the dialogue on our statement.
>> I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of
>> the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful
>> for the Board) if we say nothing.
>>
>> I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to
>> be REACTIVE  to the BGC wording.
>> What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the
>> BGC text.
>> So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want
>> (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3
>> on working groups).
>> See attached.
>>
>> I have also changed to "comment" the title that was
>> previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
>>
>> I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my
>> very best to use the most neutral language and capture the
>> minimal level of unanimity we have on Council.
>> If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the
>> office for the rest of the day / week.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>
>