<br>
I think the bigger question is why Staff submitted this to the Council<br>
in the first place. Seems it skirts around the one thing that was<br>
actually asked, what is or isn't within the picket fence. In my opinion,<br>
it does not advance anything constructive and only serves to set those<br>
with different opinions even more firmly in their positions. <br>
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> Subject: [council] A question to the candidate<br>
> From: john@crediblecontext.com<br>
> Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:08 am<br>
> To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com><br>
> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, <br>
> "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen@icann.org><br>
> <br>
> Stephane,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of the Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> In the �Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the RAA� sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this:<br>
> <br>
> "We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the process over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the substantive issues."<br>
> <br>
> This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard this criticism of delay and disharmony. How would you move to solve it? <br>
> <br>
> Cheers,<br>
> <br>
> Berard<br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>