hi,

I apologise for not having reacted  earlier.  One thing that contributed to my delay, however, was that the implications really became clear to me as the issue was being discussed in LA.  Before that I had a nagging feeling of discomfort but could not quite put words to it.  It was engaging in conversation during that meting and listening to some of the things that were said while in the GAC meting that brought that nagging feeling to the forefront and gave it voice.

I think this is one of the reasons why I felt that the GNSO  council should not be in  a hurry to finalise this before seeing what the other involved organisations were thinking.    I thought it was really good that we had a public draft on the table, but did not see the need to finalise it until we had seen the full extent of the topic.

That, and sometimes I am slow and it takes me a while to really understand what I am thinking and why, especially when I am busy understanding and explaining council's views to the community at large.

Again, apologies for the delay.

a.



On 20 nov 2007, at 13.06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I do have one gripe though.  Why weren't these concerns communicated in

L.A. or sooner?  I firmly believe that it is perfectly acceptable and in

fact needed for the chair to provide personal input as long as it is

identified as personal input.  Not doing that, leads to delayed

completion of our work as we see in this case.  I hope that we won't

repeat this in the future.  In my opinion it is always better to raise

concerns as early as possible in the process to maximize the use of our

time.