<!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
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Tom's point has merit. Here are two ways we could
accommodate it without dropping the item entirely:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>1. Instead of using the term "Partial Support" or
"Qualified Support" or "Support", we could simply say "See comments
below".</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>2. Simply say "Support" and insert our comments. In
my opinion, everyone seems to support the WG approach as long as it is designed
in a flexible manner. As I said in earlier emails, a lot of work needs to be
done to implement this recommendation so there is plenty of opportunity to
design the flexibility we think is critical into the
process.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=775300815-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>The purpose of comments is to assist the BGC WG in
finalizing the recommendations. If we totally drop this item without
making a comment about our conclusion that the WG approach must be designed with
adequate flexibility, then we will have missed the opportunity to make a
critical point for BGC WG consideration.</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>Thomas
Keller<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:52 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Avri
Doria'; 'Council GNSO'<BR><B>Subject:</B> AW: [council] Draft reply Council on
GNSO reform<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=062584508-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I have to disagree, as a non native this kind of language
is, sorry for my openenss, confusing the heck out of me. I'd rather paint it
black or white for clarity sake. In my mind there just is no such thing as
unanimous support for parts of a recommendation. We either agree with it or
not. In the case of working groups it is very clear that we do not agree. So
why don't we just strike it from the list of agreed</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=062584508-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>recommendations?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=062584508-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=062584508-27112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>tom</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=de dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>Von:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>Im Auftrag von </B>Avri
Doria<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Montag, 26. November 2007 21:26<BR><B>An:</B>
Council GNSO<BR><B>Betreff:</B> Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO
reform<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>hi,</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>seems simpler and more
understandable.
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>while my tortured sense of logic was fine with the other, i see why this
is more understandable especially since we then go and give our qualification.
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>thanks<BR>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>a.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 26 nov 2007, at 20.35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 10px Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0">So
we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the recommendation"? Sounds
a little confusing to me. At the same time, note that in my response to
Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested "Qualified Support". I
think it may be an improvement to say "we unanimously support a
recommendation with
qualifications".</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>