<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Hi,
I would like to add that while the intention is to submit this unless
there are objections voice by council members, I think it would be
best if as many as can make a active declaration of support for the
statement, assuming you support it.
I add my thanks to Philip and am comfortable supporting this version.
a.
On 28 nov 2007, at 15.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Excellent job Philip. Thanks.
I am very comfortable supporting this version.
I suggest that if there are any objections to any substantive items in
the document, they need to be communicated NLT COB on Thursday, 29
November. If none are received, Glen should go ahead and post our
comments on Friday, 30 November. If there are any substantive
objections to any items, then I think we have no other choice but to
delete those items. Minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) should be
okay if there are any.
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 Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Thank for the dialogue on our statement.
I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of
the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful
for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to
be REACTIVE to the BGC wording.
What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the
BGC text.
So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want
(and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3
on working groups).
See attached.
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was
previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my
very best to use the most neutral language and capture the
minimal level of unanimity we have on Council.
If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the
office for the rest of the day / week.
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|