AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Avri Doria avri at
Tue Nov 27 13:24:19 UTC 2007


I tend to agree.  E.g. I support the WG proposal completely  and  
think the proposal allows us the leeway to define them in a way that  
works and is flexible.  I would, therefore, be uncomfortable with a  
statement that indicated that GNSO had consensus in stating that we  
feel that we should be wary of WGs.  So while I can live with the  
statement we have that says they need a lot of thought and we want  
flexibility, I become uncomfortable as we had more caveats.


On 27 nov 2007, at 13.14, Thomas Keller wrote:

> 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 [mailto:owner- 
> council at] 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: <>

More information about the council mailing list