AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Chucks comments.
 
Best,
 
tom

  _____  

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Montag, 26. November 2007 15:58
An: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
Betreff: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform


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