RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, it would be qualified support at best. I am not convinced of the
WG model yet. We have very little experience with it as a primary policy
development mechanism, and what experience we do have I am not that
impressed with. So the proof is in the eating of the pudding. 

We need to define how WGs should be structured and operate and then try
it out, and refine as necessary. Until we know that WGs can be
consistently effective I don't see them as any better, or worse, than
the Task Force model.


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 3:31 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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