RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

Please translate Tim.  Where are you at on this one?  Support? Partial
Support? Qualidfied Support?  Other?
 
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: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:04 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
        
        
        I'm not sure I am ready to jump on to the unanimous bandwagon on
this one. Conferring with my Constituency peers.


        Tim 
        
        

                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO
reform
                From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 1:35 pm
                To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
                <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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