RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- To: <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:22:39 -0400
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acei1Xh+SrySXCE6TreaeU8tCP4MzwACLQQA
- Thread-topic: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
Very helpful Philip. Thanks
Now that I understand your point, I again think that I am in agreement
with you. My suggestions were not at all intended to suggest voting on
recommendations one at a time. In fact, the underlying point I was
trying to make is that I think that we have already reached 'broad'
agreement on a large majority of the items in the report, so we should
not have to do that. Instead we should finish the few that still need
more work and in the few cases where some think more discussion is
needed, we should do that but not if that means rehashing ground already
In my opinion, much of the concern about the recommendations relates to
those for which more work is still needed. Some of the concerns may
actually be mitigated by the work still to be done.
"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
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:54 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting -
> Thursday 7 June 2007
> Council members,
> Thank you Chuck for your helpful suggestion. Allow me to
> explain a little further the problem as we see it.
> Suppose we do choose to vote recommendation by
> recommendation. Rec 1 is - do you support new TLDs. Well the
> answer to that recommendation in isolation is no.
> The BC supports new TLDs subject to such things as financial
> and technical standards, safeguards to avoid criminal abuse,
> and safeguards for consumer protection. That was the entire
> essence of our work. I thought that we al support these goals.
> The recommendations were not written in isolation but listed
> for clarity for the benefit of those who will implement.
> If this work is unfinished, we should continue as the
> committee to work.
> If this work is finished, we should vote as Council on the
> report presented.