Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had  
reservations that were expressed in the included statements.
In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous.  So  
partial support does not refer to the level of support in the  
council  but rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the  
recommendation as written in the BWG draft.
a.



On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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