<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
- To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] FW: CCWG Final report for your consideration
- From: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:26:51 +0100
- Cc: "Paul McGrady (Policy)" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <0b8001d16f34$80cbafb0$82630f10$@paulmcgrady.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <13201F1D-1CB2-473C-A284-65081474F66C@sanchez.mx> <D2F24A2B.AFB24%jbladel@godaddy.com> <0b8001d16f34$80cbafb0$82630f10$@paulmcgrady.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
What would be very useful for me would be to hear someone
more closely involved in the process explain what has
changed since the compromise proposal that was discussed
at the intercessional in Los Angeles three weeks ago,
and why the changes happened.
Julf
On 24-02-16 19:52, Paul McGrady (Policy) wrote:
> Thanks James. It seems to me that what this last minute change boils
> down to is that the Community will never be able to spill the Board for
> acting on unpopular GAC advice (since the GAC will never agree to spill
> the Board for acting on its advice). Any attempt to spill the Board
> based on faulty GAC advice will have to be blessed by an IRP Panelist
> and found to violate the bylaws. Is this your understanding too?
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|