RE: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

I agree that according to the rules we established, if we can't reach
unanimous consensus on this one, then it should be dropped, but I would
also point out that this recommendation is probably one of the most
critical for GNSO improvement and that it seems to me that we are making
progess on agreeing to wording with which we might all be comfortable.
So I suggest that we not give up yet; we may have to give up in the end,
but let's keep trying to the end.

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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:33 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> While I strongly support WGs, I believe that under he rules 
> we set for this exercise we should remove the statement of 
> support for WGs.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 27 nov 2007, at 10.23, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> >
> > Just boarding for a 10 hr flight so likely my last opportunity to 
> > comment on this.
> >
> > I would support Tom's suggestion. Being willing to give WGs 
> a try is 
> > not really support for recommendation. We should be clear about all 
> > views on this.
> >
> > Tim
> > Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.
> >
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
> >> From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 3:01 am
> >> To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>,        "'Council
> >> GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>
> >>    Hi Philip,
> >>
> >>    as I just wrote in my last mail. I do
> >>    not think that we are in unanimous
> >>    agreement of the recommendation
> >>    therefore we should strike it from the
> >>    list.
> >>
> >>    tom
> >>      ___________________________________
> >>    Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>    [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> >>    Auftrag von Philip Sheppard
> >>    Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007
> >>    09:45
> >>    An: 'Council GNSO'
> >>    Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council
> >>    on GNSO reform
> >>    If I read Council right (thanks Chuck,
> >>    Avri, Adrian),
> >>    I will amend to "qualified support"
> >>    where I previously wrote "partial
> >>    support".
> >>
> >>    I think we are all on the same page
> >>    here.
> >>    (Chuck we are not advocating task forces
> >>    here just laying down a marker for
> >>    flexibility which I note you support).
> >>
> >>    Philip
> >
> >
> 
>