ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

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

  • To: "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
  • From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:00:45 -0500
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toast.net; s=smartermail; h=references:in-reply-to:x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version :message-id:reply-to:date:subject:to:from; bh=LcxMTsjIo/O/VV2qW45VDuhFyQIJJfI/0m9yxUUW2EQ=; b=w59cYyBKwrdxXvYWYCiIutJABSC4bm+Gk1WzCF4k4Nv6SFZP8cJoubusnzwAOTQwL 8R1PtLAxsAgpGFYuievsgeXXHhfUhOCDVwhT47BraAQ/YjTGTCA3KhH6OtyA2r+DL PLeHLIC+F+SeziMaThpQWEQi/BndHvNpTDK4LfBI8=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; d=toast.net; s=smartermail; h=received:from:to:subject:date:reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references; b=MSoQP0DDA4kLZ5J+Wj/462Fpuks5kEP45xcTUiO1srbgT5dB3o+4wXAzv5cIiUVXU 2omETOjXDCGQM2dvoqSKMdxVo3SCahDeC49SJ4m0oe1dcI+hai7/BOt4EKxHY7H1E xzvGLiDTXMjzX+LYy0vFcs/6y4jkPq/b6Nb7p27sU=
  • In-reply-to: <77DF12A2B9E64D84A10A589152F2E31F@WUKPC>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1DFD7D64@Exchange.sierracorporation.com><A75DF158AEC241CDB577CA19F0D2C266@WUKPC> <7eadee26d7804b24a877b2ba0a7d4c80@toast.net> <77DF12A2B9E64D84A10A589152F2E31F@WUKPC>
  • Reply-to: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

 ?I'm very happy to work with you and others on the language. I've learned over 
the past week that James is a master wordsmith; perhaps he has an idea as to 
how to improve the language.

 ?I take "overall" to mean "all things considered",  as in 'after considering 
all inputs' the GNSO...

 ?Thanks for clarifying - I'm sure we can find some language that will be 
clearer both to yourself and to many others for whom this may be confusing. 
It's great you picked this up, we're looking for clarity and accuracy here for 
everyone.

 Thanks,

 Ed




----------------------------------------
 From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:51 PM
To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx, "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
   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
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>