RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the recommendation"?
Sounds a little confusing to me.  At the same time, note that in my
response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested
"Qualified Support".  I think it may be an improvement to say "we
unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications".
 
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 Avri Doria
        Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:11 AM
        To: Council GNSO
        Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
        
        
        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