RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

["McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think a formal up/down/abstain=no vote at this stage would be a mistake as it 
might send a much more negative message to the CCWG than is the actual 
situation on the ground.  The CCWG needs information and time to fix these 
draft recommendations and send them back for formal action.  Even if the CCWG 
has requested a formal vote at this stage, and it is not clear to me that they 
have, I don't think the GNSO is bound to do something counterproductive even if 
the CCWG asked it to do so.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:41 AM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report


Wolf-Ulrich,

> Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet 
> agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - 
> maybe even at the council meeting next week.

I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will 
have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the 
*final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?

        Julf



The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.