Just boarding for a 10 hr flight so likely my last opportunity to comment on this. I would support Tom's suggestion. Being willing to give WGs a try is not really support for recommendation. We should be clear about all views on this. Tim Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@1und1.de> Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 3:01 am To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hi Philip,
as I just wrote in my last mail. I do not think that we are in unanimous agreement of the recommendation therefore we should strike it from the list.
tom ___________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Philip Sheppard Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 09:45 An: 'Council GNSO' Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform If I read Council right (thanks Chuck, Avri, Adrian), I will amend to "qualified support" where I previously wrote "partial support".
I think we are all on the same page here. (Chuck we are not advocating task forces here just laying down a marker for flexibility which I note you support).
Philip