ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

RE: [council] Council restructuring

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Council restructuring
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:44:28 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <7AFC7EFC096A40B5BFA73A314EA80A5F@PSEVO>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <524D3285-CCBA-4DF0-B282-C3B022AC46AA@acm.org> <56D417FEC2CB407AB55B312257DD1B2F@PSEVO> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07027CBBA4@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7AFC7EFC096A40B5BFA73A314EA80A5F@PSEVO>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AclLcHGJZPLwF2GESnumDEKH+LFqNgAYXjQgAAPrwBAABKw5kAACc08A
  • Thread-topic: [council] Council restructuring
Thanks for the response Philip.  Please note my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:18 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Council restructuring
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> probably all true.
> 
> Two thoughts:
> - there is no point have a lovely new bi cameral council in 
> June if it is impotent as its related PDP is unfinished.

To what PDP are you referring?  If you are referring to the GNSO
Improvements effort, the state of progress of the GNSO Improvements
effort should not make the bicameral Council impotent.  We would simply
be voting on policy recommendations developed under the old model.  

> - what you write will help our discussion but need not change 
> our note to the Board.

Agreed but I think it would be good to attached the latest state of the
proposed schedule with priorities, etc.

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