<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Hi,
I tend to agree. E.g. I support the WG proposal completely and
think the proposal allows us the leeway to define them in a way that
works and is flexible. I would, therefore, be uncomfortable with a
statement that indicated that GNSO had consensus in stating that we
feel that we should be wary of WGs. So while I can live with the
statement we have that says they need a lot of thought and we want
flexibility, I become uncomfortable as we had more caveats.
a.
On 27 nov 2007, at 13.14, Thomas Keller wrote:
Philip,
I guess the problem is that we all agree on WG but to a different
degree. Which leads me to the conclusion that we are not in
agreement with the BGC recommendation and that we need further time
to refine our statement.
tom
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Philip Sheppard
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 10:55
An: 'Council GNSO'
Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Tom, Tim
I certainly have sympathy for trying to be clear on language !
Of course we can strike out the entire section of working groups
but that seems a pity if we are all close to agreement and just
need to get the words right.
Forget the wording of the paper for the moment are you saying Tom
and Tim that:
a) you support ONLY working groups OR (like the BGC)
b) you support mostly working groups for big PDPs but want
flexibility for other types of group OR (Council's current wording)
c) you want full flexibility for WGS, TFs etc with no special
preference for one over the other - its best to decide per issue
(more flexible than Council's current wording).
It would be helpful to know which of these 3 options are yours (or
if I have missed an option).
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|