RE: [council] Re: A question to the candidate

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mind you JB, agreeing to disagree is not necessarily a bad thing given the 
diversity of backgrounds and perspectives in the Council.

Adrian Kinderis 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011 10:19 PM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen_de_Saint_Géry
Subject: RE: [council] Re: A question to the candidate



Dakar is fine, as long as we do not settle for a "we'll just agree to
disagree" conclusion.


I will not be on hand, so just imagine I am there to keep poking at this
matter.


Cheers,


Berard

  -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: [council] Re: A question to the candidate
 From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:41 am
 To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
 "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
 
 
 Thanks John. I am unsure whether you expect an answer by email or would
prefer that we "stockpile" this question for the "Q&A with candidate"
session that we have planned in Dakar?
 
 I would think that the second option is better, as it means everyone
can join the discussion as and when they wish.
 
 Also, as I am leaving for Dakar tomorrow and will probably be out of
email range for a few days, if anyone else has any questions that would
mean I could address them all at the same time, which might work better.
 
 Would you be OK with this?
 
 Stéphane
 
 
 
 Le 14 oct. 2011 à 17:16, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
 
 > I forgot to switch my earlier email to plain text. Sorry all.
 > 
 > Berard
 > 
 > 
 > Stephane,
 > 
 > 
 > As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of
the
 > Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this:
 > 
 > 
 > In the “Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the
 > RAA” sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this:
 > 
 > 
 > "We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the
 > process over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the
 > substantive issues."
 > 
 > 
 > This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard
 > this criticism of delay and disharmony. How would you move to solve
it?
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Cheers,
 > 
 > 
 > Berard
 >