This looks good to me, Philip, thank you. Robin Philip Sheppard wrote:
Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached.
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week.
Philip