<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Follow-up to the second JAS WG report
- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 18:43:42 +0900
- Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=zrgxPmJWm4fO5EzKGtLadL09ZyO6Aiw0GB/YYIFbqco=; b=Fce+llgweNhV+v9lPkNqA8F1/sWVd9zq3zQ5UXWz4Z4ulghx1LutpmCe1bwj4iOcs9 e51ail1td7rMa8/I8OqCWuKO/nrYkLuy9R11Jju7K03db9CBJDwEjbTHGnWN5YffOl1O xu4qg1mwzIiW+DvNrSl++bp6UiZuwRYnzgyRk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=WdJadRXsI3F/tSnEpOU0ZJRv4vF4+nIJg5A6djdPTSRUkwT3aTvLodnckNzG9sMVMP iyTX/buL14Dt839AO6uIvexF3AmemYng+e/C7JbVFuzHqr5wgvWvIBAsTnydpCDwgHGV eUvet7pBDkEccuzyXvQ8/24PfzOMB8USG6T7k=
- In-reply-to: <D03D32A5-AADC-4F3D-98D4-FE3957618985@indom.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <BANLkTinRLnWbWFKUorzK0JCQwKjjT0LhRQ@mail.gmail.com> <D03D32A5-AADC-4F3D-98D4-FE3957618985@indom.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
2011/5/23 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Councillors, FYI.
>
> I have responded to Katim explaining that as the GNSO Council has not
> approved the report yet, having a call may be premature at this stage.
>
where is your response?
I don't think that a call which can clarify many things to stakeholders is
premature ,
>
> Obviously, I would welcome any other input from any of you.
>
> It does seem however that the Board is not clear on the fact that this
> report has not been approved. Discussions by them of a "way forward" on a
> report that hasn't yet been approved by us may just be thinking ahead, or it
> may be that they have not cottoned on to the fact that the report hasn't yet
> been approved...
>
> are you wondering or speculating here?
how can you assume that? why?
Rafik
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> Début du message réexpédié :
>
> *De : *"Katim S. Touray" <kstouray@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Date : *23 mai 2011 03:13:11 HAEC
> *À : *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <
> stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Objet : **Follow-up to the second JAS WG report*
>
> Dear Olivier and Stéphane,
>
> First, let me congratulate you and your teams, as well as the JAS WG on
> their second report. I've had the opportunity to go through it, and it's
> quality work.
>
> To follow on the second JAS WG report, I would like to ask if you'd be
> interested in organizing a conference call for interested board members and
> the GNSO, GAC, and At-Large reps to discuss the status and way forward for
> the recently released JAS WG report. The idea was presented at the recently
> concluded board retreat in Istanbul that a public meeting on the JAS WG
> report (with the participation of the board and GAC) will be helpful, and
> toward this end, it would be useful to have a conference call. Please let
> me know if this makes sense to you and let me know when you want to have the
> call, if indeed you want to have it.
>
> Again, thanks to all of you and your teams for the great work you're doing
> on the issue! I hope we'll all be able to come together to have a useful
> program we all can be proud of. Have a great week, and best wishes!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Katim
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|