I tend to agree. E.g. I support the WG proposal completely and think the proposal allows us the leeway to define them in a way that works and is flexible. I would, therefore, be uncomfortable with a statement that indicated that GNSO had consensus in stating that we feel that we should be wary of WGs. So while I can live with the statement we have that says they need a lot of thought and we want flexibility, I become uncomfortable as we had more caveats.

On 27 nov 2007, at 13.14, Thomas Keller wrote:

Philip,

I guess the problem is that we all agree on WG but to a different degree. Which leads me to the conclusion that we are not in agreement with the BGC recommendation and that we need further time to refine our statement.

tom

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Philip Sheppard
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 10:55
An: 'Council GNSO'
Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

Tom, Tim

I certainly have sympathy for trying to be clear on language !

Of course we can strike out the entire section of working groups but that seems a pity if we are all close to agreement and just need to get the words right.

Forget the wording of the paper for the moment are you saying Tom and Tim that:

a) you support ONLY working groups OR (like the BGC)

b) you support mostly working groups for big PDPs but want flexibility for other types of group OR (Council's current wording)

c) you want full flexibility for WGS, TFs etc with no special preference for one over the other - its best to decide per issue (more flexible than Council's current wording).

It would be helpful to know which of these 3 options are yours (or if I have missed an option).

Philip