Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ed,

as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, 
like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO’s 
status.
Maybe it’s just an issue of how I understand the word “overall” with my limited 
English. To me it means “covering or including all and everything”. If this is 
the meaning then “overall” is misplaced here.
How about “broadly” or “at large”.
I’m sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree 
on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make 
progress.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Edward Morris 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM
To: Phil Corwin ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; WUKnoben 
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,



- Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: “The GNSO overall does 
not support this recommendation.” This should be deleted.

I disagree.

I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within 
the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief 
that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the 
simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is 
shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11.

Thanks,

Ed Morris