RE: [council] GNSO Council Election Interviews

[<Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>]

I prefer the informal approach...that is, having the candidates give
their statement and then opening the floor to questions.  I don't think
it necessary to have each constituency ask their questions separately
since it is likely that we will have similar questions. 

Lucy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Marilyn Cade
>Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:53 PM
>To: Ken Stubbs; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria
>Cc: GNSO Council
>Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Election Interviews
>
>Sorry, Ken, don't understand. Are yiu suggesting you don't 
>want to ask candidates questions, or you prefer to let others 
>ask questions? Couldn't decipher. Aplologies for that. 
>Regards,
>Marilyn Cade
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 17:30:15
>To:Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>Cc:GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Election Interviews
>
>i am much more comfortable with the approach outlined below..
>
>ken stubbs
>
>
>Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> On 29 maj 2006, at 17.02, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>>
>>> Are you planning to allow each constituency a question or two, or 
>>> should we submit questions to Glen, that can be organized into 
>>> categories?
>>>
>>
>> while I have several questions in mind, I would prefer to listen to 
>> what someone has to say before framing a question, as it is quite 
>> possible that my question would be answered or obviated by something 
>> the candidate said in a statement or in response to someone else's 
>> question.  Likewise a question might only occur to me once i heard a 
>> statement or the answer to someone else question.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>