<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] GNSO review - the easy wins
- Subject: Re: [council] GNSO review - the easy wins
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:33:36 -0500
- Cc: "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <000c01c7510b$8716b190$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- References: <00a801c750e3$1e62acd0$e601a8c0@PSEVO> <DD20F916-B972-4B5C-BDFD-3C83859D50F4@tucows.com> <000c01c7510b$8716b190$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15-Feb-07, at 9:13 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Hello Ross,
having a good day I see.
Why do you think I am avoiding the Board governance committee?
I talked explicitly about co-operating with them.
If you require an ABC on process, I foresee this short list as
Council's initial INPUT to
the Board committee.
Would they not like a set of easy wins too ?
Of course if you are to irate to bother just let us all know and
I'll make a note in my
diary to revisit this issue in the year 2018 when we can check to
see if you have calmed
down.
Philip - I am having an excellent day. I am not sure why you've
characterized my response to your request as an emotional reaction,
but it is consistent with your historical rhetoric so I guess I
should be used to it by now.
As far as I can tell, your proposal is to take a subset of the issues
raised by the LSE report and act on them immediately, net of any
influence outside of council.
I don't think its wise to "guess" what the BGC is looking for as you
propose, nor do I think its wise to pursue any action items on reform
until we have a better understanding of the context in which we're
pursuing those actions. Even something seemingly straightforward like
implementing a travel policy for council presumes a) that there will
be a council post-reform, b) that travel will be required in the
context of the PDP, c) that the work of the council merits funding in
a post-reform GNSO, etc., etc., etc.
There is no work for the Council coming out of the LSE report until
the Board brings us into the process.
Why the rush here Philip? Might it not make more sense to focus on
the work we do have in front of us? For instance, implementing some
of the recommendations from the Sharry report? I realize that those
are at least two years old and lack some of the glamor and shine of
the LSE report, but at least the process is complete and the
capability to implement fully under our control.
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|