AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Thomas Keller]

Philip,
 
I guess the problem is that we all agree on WG but to a different degree.
Which leads me to the conclusion that we are not in agreement with the BGC
recommendation and that we need further time to refine our statement.
 
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 10:55
An: 'Council GNSO'
Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform


Tom, Tim
I certainly have sympathy for trying to be clear on language !
 
Of course we can strike out the entire section of working groups but that
seems a pity if we are all close to agreement and just need to get the words
right.
 
Forget the wording of the paper for the moment are you saying Tom and Tim
that:
a) you support ONLY working groups OR   (like the BGC)
b) you support mostly working groups for big PDPs but want flexibility for
other types of group OR (Council's current wording)
c) you want full flexibility for WGS, TFs etc with no special preference for
one over the other - its best to decide per issue (more flexible than
Council's current wording).
 
It would be helpful to know which of these 3 options are yours (or if I have
missed an option).
 
Philip
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071127/40d0d20e/attachment.html>