RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:47:21 -0400
- In-reply-to: <009001c7a28c$d397f1a0$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AceiRqmdShlcI4NkRHSrwPlIv6zLvAARFzHQAAAoVpAADRf+8A==
- Thread-topic: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
I do not understand your point, especially item 2. I submitted my
suggestions for a way forward thinking that they were largely consistent
with the principles you communicated. I also oppose an item by item
approach to this and think it would be a terrible wast of time, but I do
believe that there are a few items that are not finished yet and that
ultimately the Council will have to vote on the total package to
determine whether or not there is a 2/3 majority as the PDP requirements
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:34 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting -
> Thursday 7 June 2007
> Further to discussion on how we handle the gTLD report.
> 1. I would still like to hear a counter-argument to the
> principles I outlined earlier regarding the objective of
> Council working as a committee of the whole.
> 2. For the record the BC does not support any recommendations
> characterised informally by Chuck as "Broad agreement"
> without the safety net of those recommendations characterised
> informally as "Work Ongoing". We have all worked diligently
> on this and see the report as
> an integrated whole.
> If it is to be separated, we will likely be forced to vote
> against systematically.
> If it is to be separated we will likely be forced to vote
> against a committee of the whole approach for any future PDP
> based on its meaningless approach.
> To date we hear from just one constituency calling for this
> separate approach. Lets hear from others before we decide as
> Council how we will vote on our own work.
> BC rapporteur