Thanks for the feedback Tim. It would help me to understand what positive elements of the Task Force option you believe could not be included in the Working Group model. 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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:49 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Hi Chuck. I appreciate your points regarding the WG and potential for flexibility. But I agree more with what Philip has written in the document. I am not yet convinced that such flexibility is possible to the extent that we can rely only on WGs. I think it should continue to be explored, but I believe its too early to completely dump the Task Force option. We need more experience, trial and error, etc. with WGs. Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Direct: 319-329-9804 Fax: 480-247-4516 tim@godaddy.com How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@godaddy.com with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, November 21, 2007 1:18 pm To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> 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