<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Further Draft of GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report - for discussion
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Further Draft of GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report - for discussion
- From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:05:09 -0800
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <C7EF85CA4CE9417680AF5B62042BDC19@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AclWk5BsnF/k/i7bEEGW3gSB/yew2gALx/OAAHmZBNkAGfQPcAAPdmsK
- Thread-topic: [council] Further Draft of GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report - for discussion
Thanks Philip. No intent to cause any concerns on the structure query. I
included the form/structure item in the draft "key decision" list when I first
circulated the "strawman" document on 15 November. No one suggested creating
any more reform teams, but I thought it was important that the Council discuss
and confirm the form and methodology it wanted to employ for organizing and
addressing the Council transition/implementation effort. I thought Chuck's
subsequent contribution (11/16) of what are now identified as items 1.a and
1.b. clarified the necessary Council decision quite well. Will eliminate or
edit the item as appropriate based on further input.
RobH
On 12/8/08 3:44 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
Rob,
I was horrified to read in the otherwise excellent raft the following:
"Determine form, structure and composition of implementation/transition
oversight (drafting team, task force, working group, council subcommittee, etc)"
Who is seriously suggesting we need even more reform teams over and above the
OSC and PSC steering groups and underlying teams ?
No No and thrice no.
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|