AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Avri Doria]

hi,

While I strongly support WGs, I believe that under he rules we set  
for this exercise we should remove the statement of support for WGs.

a.

On 27 nov 2007, at 10.23, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> Just boarding for a 10 hr flight so likely my last opportunity to
> comment on this.
>
> I would support Tom's suggestion. Being willing to give WGs a try  
> is not
> really support for recommendation. We should be clear about all  
> views on
> this.
>
> Tim
> Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
>> From: "Thomas Keller" <tom at 1und1.de>
>> Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 3:01 am
>> To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard at aim.be>,        "'Council
>> GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>    Hi Philip,
>>
>>    as I just wrote in my last mail. I do
>>    not think that we are in unanimous
>>    agreement of the recommendation
>>    therefore we should strike it from the
>>    list.
>>
>>    tom
>>      ___________________________________
>>    Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>    [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im
>>    Auftrag von Philip Sheppard
>>    Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007
>>    09:45
>>    An: 'Council GNSO'
>>    Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council
>>    on GNSO reform
>>    If I read Council right (thanks Chuck,
>>    Avri, Adrian),
>>    I will amend to "qualified support"
>>    where I previously wrote "partial
>>    support".
>>
>>    I think we are all on the same page
>>    here.
>>    (Chuck we are not advocating task forces
>>    here just laying down a marker for
>>    flexibility which I note you support).
>>
>>    Philip
>
>