RE: [council] A question to the candidate

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And if I may provide further clarification this was a directive FROM THE BOARD 
at the last meeting in Singapore.

I am curious as to why the staff went this way, given that direction, without 
consulting the SG that was involved in requesting it.

For what it is worth, I am cc’ing Bruce Tonkin and Rita Rodin and Rod Beckstrom 
all of whom were present at the RrSg meeting where this was discussed.

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011 7:10 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] A question to the candidate


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.

Tim

> -------- 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?Â
>
> Cheers,
>
> Berard
>
>