RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the feedback Tim.  It would help me to understand what
positive elements of the Task Force option you believe could not be
included in the Working Group model.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"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." 
 


________________________________

        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:49 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
        
        
        Hi Chuck. I appreciate your points regarding the WG and
potential for flexibility. But I agree more with what Philip has written
in the document. I am not yet convinced that such flexibility is
possible to the extent that we can rely only on WGs. I think it should
continue to be explored, but I believe its too early to completely dump
the Task Force option. We need more experience, trial and error, etc.
with WGs.


        Tim Ruiz
        Vice President
        Corp. Development & Policy
        The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
        Direct: 319-329-9804
        Fax: 480-247-4516
        tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
        
        How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at
president@xxxxxxxxxxx with any feedback.
        
        This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for
use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential
information. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this message and its attachments.
        
        
        

                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO
reform
                From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Wed, November 21, 2007 1:18 pm
                To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Council
GNSO"
                <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                Thank you very much Philip for the very quick
turn-around on this and for a job very well done.  I inserted my
comments in the attached document.
                 
                Chuck Gomes
                 
                "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." 
                 


________________________________

                        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM
                        To: 'Council GNSO'
                        Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO
reform
                        
                        
                        As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I
promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those
recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a
whole.
                        Given the deadline is submission by 30 November
I thought I'd better get a move on.
                         
                        Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking:
                        - improvements in policy development and
timeline flexibility,
                        - improvements in communications,
                        - improvements in outreach
                        - greater support for constituencies.
                         
                        I have left out proposals on structural change
suspecting we will have differing views.
                         
                        On working groups, I am proposing a partial
support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work,
but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue
before us would be too inflexible.  
                         
                        I hope I have captured areas of potential
agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time
I'll edit a proposed final version.
                        Comments can be as simple as  - "yes I/we
support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of
agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share.
                         
                         
                         
                        Philip