RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

Thanks again Philip.  This is looking very good in my opinion, but I
still have a four areas of concern.
 
3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task forces of
Council.
 
I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task
force model would be excluded in a working group model.  I would
appreciate some explanation here.  For the moment at least, I think we
should say "Support", not "Partial Support".  I have no problem
emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not
support the suggestion to include 'task forces'.
 
3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running
working groups.
 
Why only "Partial Support" for this?  I think we should say "Support".
 
4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of "consensus policies"
upon which the GNSO may make change.
 
I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support".
 
5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of
Council. 

 
Why only "Partial Support" for this?  I think we should say "Support".
 
 
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 Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
        To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
        
        
        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