Please see my responses below.

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

you are right. I have written "partial support" either where the intent of the BGC is unclear and we wish to clarify what we support, or where we go along with the BGC but are adding a word of caution or clarification.

If you can think of a better phrase, I'm happy to use it. "Qualified support" / "conditional support" ??
[Gomes, Chuck] I could live with "Qualified support".

On the specifics of support to WGs.

I understand Council wants flexibility: going along with WGs for most cases but we may choose other means now and again according to the issue.

The BGC report is written less flexibly and more reflects the by-laws NOT current Council practice.

see opening to section 3 on page 12 (caps are mine):

"The BGC recommends that a working group concept becomes the FOUNDATION and FOCAL point for consensus development work in the GNSO AND potentially for other Council activities."

This model would constitute an improvement over the the current system."

If we think that there may be at least one issue where we would prefer to form a task force of constituency reps, or a committee of the whole of Council, (like we did last week), we need to say this. The BGC report text does not seem to allow for this flexibility. Or if the BGC meant it, they did not write it.
[Gomes, Chuck] I am probably being too picky on the reference to 'task forces'. I totally agree on the need for flexibility in the WG model even to include a working group of constituency reps or a committee of the whole but in both cases am concerned about the following: 1) working groups involving just constituency reps and NomCom reps still need to be designed to incorporate more inclusive participation, which of course can happen in a variety of ways instead of just opening up the WG to anyone; 2) I believe it is very critical that we diligently move away from Councilors doing most of the work, so, as I have communicated several times already, I strongly think that initiating Council as the Whole working groups should be done with great caution and should still allow for delegating work to others; 3) using the term 'task force' in my opinion automatically conjures up the task force requirements in the current Bylaws PDP, which are terribly inflexible.