[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
philip.sheppard at aim.be
Wed Nov 28 09:14:02 UTC 2007
Thank for the dialogue on our statement.
I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will
look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC
What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text.
So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant
part of the table under item 3 on working groups).
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the
comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most
neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council.
If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO reply reform proposals 2007FINAL.doc
Size: 62464 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the council