[council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Philip Sheppard]

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
wording.
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).
See attached.

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
/ week.

Philip

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO reply reform proposals 2007FINAL.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 62464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071128/d7c40bd7/GNSOreplyreformproposals2007FINAL.doc>