RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

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

Tom's point has merit.  Here are two ways we could accommodate it
without dropping the item entirely:
 
1. Instead of using the term "Partial Support" or "Qualified Support" or
"Support", we could simply say "See comments below".
 
2. Simply say "Support" and insert our comments.  In my opinion,
everyone seems to support the WG approach as long as it is designed in a
flexible manner. As I said in earlier emails, a lot of work needs to be
done to implement this recommendation so there is plenty of opportunity
to design the flexibility we think is critical into the process.
 
The purpose of comments is to assist the BGC WG in finalizing the
recommendations.  If we totally drop this item without making a comment
about our conclusion that the WG approach must be designed with adequate
flexibility, then we will have missed the opportunity to make a critical
point for BGC WG consideration.
 
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 Thomas Keller
        Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:52 AM
        To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Council GNSO'
        Subject: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
        
        
        I have to disagree, as a non native this kind of language is,
sorry for my openenss, confusing the heck out of me. I'd rather paint it
black or white for clarity sake. In my mind there just is no such thing
as unanimous support for parts of a recommendation. We either agree with
it or not. In the case of working groups it is very clear that we do not
agree. So why don't we just strike it from the list of agreed
        recommendations?
         
        tom

________________________________

        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
        Gesendet: Montag, 26. November 2007 21:26
        An: Council GNSO
        Betreff: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
        
        
        hi,

        seems simpler and more understandable. 

        while my tortured sense of logic was fine with the other, i see
why this is more understandable especially since we then go and give our
qualification. 

        thanks
        

        a.

        On 26 nov 2007, at 20.35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                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".