ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

  • To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:19:45 -0800
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <00a001c8319f$061aa630$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Organization: IP Justice
  • References: <20071127022349.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.a1293e5692.wbe@mobilemail.secureserver.net> <DE2CBC4B-95AB-479E-B32A-C0EF9D0778FE@psg.com> <00a001c8319f$061aa630$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
  • Reply-to: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915

This looks good to me, Philip, thank you.

Robin


Philip Sheppard wrote:


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 >>>