RE: [council] RE: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 18 November 2010 at 11:00 UTC

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear councilors, would you please use "easy language", some of us may not
know what is "tortured verbiage".  This is not related to this particular
post, but for council texts and speeches in general.

 

Thank you for understanding,

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: Rosette, Kristina; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 18 November 2010
at 11:00 UTC

 

Hi Caroline

 

On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Caroline Greer wrote:





We had two quality candidates and as a group, we felt unable to choose
between them Kristina.

 

It is our understanding that nothing prevents us from forwarding two names.

 

It's true that the drafting team for the RT endorsement process didn't
specify modalities for replacing people; it was pretty clear that addressing
multiple circumstances would involve additional politics and tortured
verbiage.  Nevertheless, one would think that the intention of the core
principle, "Each stakeholder group may endorse one applicant to serve as a
representative in a given review team" is pretty clear and applies to
replacements as well.  As you know, neither the DT nor the Council ever
discussed the possibility of SGs getting to put forward more names than
their counterparts in any context, the whole point was uniformity and
parity, so it's a bit hard to see the absence of a specific prohibition as a
mandate.

 

Whatever..Hopefully someone will not cite this down the road as a precedent
for endorsing multiple names at the front end etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill