ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] A question to the candidate

  • To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [council] A question to the candidate
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:10:07 -0700
  • Cc:
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think the bigger question is why Staff submitted this to the Council
in the first place. Seems it skirts around the one thing that was
actually asked, what is or isn't within the picket fence. In my opinion,
it does not advance anything constructive and only serves to set those
with different opinions even more firmly in their positions. 


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] A question to the candidate
> From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, October 14, 2011 9:08 am
> To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,       
> "Glen_de_Saint_Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Stephane,
> As you think about how you might approach a second term as Chair of the 
> Council, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on this:
> In the  �Discussion Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the RAA� 
> sent to the Council yesterday by Kurt Pritz, is this:
> "We also note that disagreements in the GNSO Council regarding the process 
> over the last year have resulted in delays in considering the substantive 
> issues."
> This is not the first time or the softest way in which we have heard this 
> criticism of delay and disharmony.  How would you move to solve it?  
> Cheers,
> Berard

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