So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the recommendation"?  Sounds a little confusing to me.  At the same time, note that in my response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested "Qualified Support".  I think it may be an improvement to say "we unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications".
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"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."
 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:11 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Hi,

I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had reservations that were expressed in the included statements.

In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous.  So partial support does not refer to the level of support in the council  but rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the recommendation as written in the BWG draft.

a.



On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Thanks again Philip.  This is looking very good in my opinion, but I still have a four areas of concern.
 
3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task forces of Council.
 
I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task force model would be excluded in a working group model.  I would appreciate some explanation here.  For the moment at least, I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support".  I have no problem emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not support the suggestion to include 'task forces'.
 
3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running working groups.
 
Why only "Partial Support" for this?  I think we should say "Support".
 
4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of “consensus policies” upon which the GNSO may make change.
 
I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support".
 
5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of Council.
 
Why only "Partial Support" for this?  I think we should say "Support".
 
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"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."
 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and for a job very well done.  I inserted my comments in the attached document.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"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."
 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole.
Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on.
 
Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking:
- improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility,
- improvements in communications,
- improvements in outreach
- greater support for constituencies.
 
I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views.
 
On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible. 
 
I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version.
Comments can be as simple as  - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share.
 
 
 
Philip