<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=913171819-26112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Please see my responses below.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Chuck Gomes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>"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." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip
Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, November 26, 2007 10:33 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
'Council GNSO'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO
reform<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chuck, Avri,
Tom</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>you are
right. I have written "partial support" either where the intent
of the BGC is unclear and we wish to clarify what we support, or where we go
along with the BGC but are adding a word of caution or
clarification.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>If you can
think of a better phrase, I'm happy to use it. "Qualified support" /
"conditional support" ??<BR><SPAN class=913171819-26112007><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Gomes, Chuck] I could live with "Qualified
support". </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>On the specifics
of support to WGs.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understand
Council wants flexibility: going along with WGs for most cases but we may
choose other means now and again according to the issue.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>The BGC report is
written less flexibly and more reflects the by-laws NOT current Council
practice.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>see opening to
section 3 on page 12 (caps are mine):</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>"The BGC
recommends that a working group concept becomes the FOUNDATION and FOCAL point
for consensus development work in the GNSO AND potentially for other Council
activities."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>This model would
constitute an improvement over the the current system."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>If we think
that there may be at least one issue where we would prefer to form a task
force of constituency reps, or a committee of the whole of Council, (like we
did last week), we need to say this. The BGC report text does not seem to
allow for this flexibility. Or if the BGC meant it, they did not write
it.<BR><SPAN class=913171819-26112007><FONT color=#0000ff>[Gomes,
Chuck] I am probably being too picky on the reference to 'task
forces'. I totally agree on the need for flexibility in the WG
model even to include a working group of constituency reps
or a committee of the whole but in both cases am concerned about
the following: 1) working groups involving just constituency reps and
NomCom reps still need to be designed to incorporate more inclusive
participation, which of course can happen in a variety of ways instead of just
opening up the WG to anyone; 2) I believe it is very critical that we
diligently move away from Councilors doing most of the work, so, as I have
communicated several times already, I strongly think that initiating Council
as the Whole working groups should be done with great caution and should still
allow for delegating work to others; 3) using the term 'task force' in my
opinion automatically conjures up the task force requirements in the current
Bylaws PDP, which are terribly
inflexible.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Philip</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656091815-26112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>