[council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

[Edward Morris]

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
  
 ?I'm very happy to work with you and others on the language. I've learned over the past week that James is a master wordsmith; perhaps he has an idea as to how to improve the language.
  
 ?I take "overall" to mean "all things considered",  as in 'after considering all inputs' the GNSO...
  
 ?Thanks for clarifying - I'm sure we can find some language that will be clearer both to yourself and to many others for whom this may be confusing. It's great you picked this up, we're looking for clarity and accuracy here for everyone.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed
  
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:51 PM
To: egmorris1 at toast.net, "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT   
   Hi Ed,
  
 as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status.
 Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here.
 How about "broadly" or "at large".
 I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress.
  
 Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich
 
    
  From: Edward Morris
 Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM
 To: Phil Corwin ; council at gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben
 Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

  

  Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
  
  
  
    - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted.
  
 I disagree.
  
 I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Ed Morris
 
    
   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160121/67607a68/attachment.html>