RE: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
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
hi, While I strongly support WGs, I believe that under he rules we set for this exercise we should remove the statement of support for WGs. a. On 27 nov 2007, at 10.23, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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
I agree that according to the rules we established, if we can't reach unanimous consensus on this one, then it should be dropped, but I would also point out that this recommendation is probably one of the most critical for GNSO improvement and that it seems to me that we are making progess on agreeing to wording with which we might all be comfortable. So I suggest that we not give up yet; we may have to give up in the end, but let's keep trying to the end. 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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:33 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
hi,
While I strongly support WGs, I believe that under he rules we set for this exercise we should remove the statement of support for WGs.
a.
On 27 nov 2007, at 10.23, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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
Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing. I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached. I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made. I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week. Philip
Excellent job Philip. Thanks. I am very comfortable supporting this version. I suggest that if there are any objections to any substantive items in the document, they need to be communicated NLT COB on Thursday, 29 November. If none are received, Glen should go ahead and post our comments on Friday, 30 November. If there are any substantive objections to any items, then I think we have no other choice but to delete those items. Minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) should be okay if there are any. 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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached.
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week.
Philip
Hi, I would like to add that while the intention is to submit this unless there are objections voice by council members, I think it would be best if as many as can make a active declaration of support for the statement, assuming you support it. I add my thanks to Philip and am comfortable supporting this version. a. On 28 nov 2007, at 15.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Excellent job Philip. Thanks.
I am very comfortable supporting this version.
I suggest that if there are any objections to any substantive items in the document, they need to be communicated NLT COB on Thursday, 29 November. If none are received, Glen should go ahead and post our comments on Friday, 30 November. If there are any substantive objections to any items, then I think we have no other choice but to delete those items. Minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) should be okay if there are any.
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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached.
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week.
Philip
Good work Philip. Thank you for putting this together and especially to come up with this new approach. Best, tom -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2007 15:51 An: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Betreff: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Wichtigkeit: Hoch Excellent job Philip. Thanks. I am very comfortable supporting this version. I suggest that if there are any objections to any substantive items in the document, they need to be communicated NLT COB on Thursday, 29 November. If none are received, Glen should go ahead and post our comments on Friday, 30 November. If there are any substantive objections to any items, then I think we have no other choice but to delete those items. Minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) should be okay if there are any. 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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached.
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week.
Philip
Well done, Philip. I support. Kristina -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:14 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing. I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached. I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made. I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week. Philip
This looks good to me, Philip, thank you. Robin Philip Sheppard wrote:
Thank for the dialogue on our statement. I tend to agree with Chuck in that WGs are such a key part of the BGC proposals that it will look very odd (and unhelpful for the Board) if we say nothing.
I believe the problem may be that I constructed our reply to be REACTIVE to the BGC wording. What I think we have all been saying is more refined than the BGC text. So I suggest a simple PROACTIVE statement of what we want (and a removal of the relevant part of the table under item 3 on working groups). See attached.
I have also changed to "comment" the title that was previously "partial support" above the comments we made.
I hope we can all agee to this latest version. I have done my very best to use the most neutral language and capture the minimal level of unanimity we have on Council. If there is support, Glen please submit. I will be out of the office for the rest of the day / week.
Philip
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Robin Gross -
Rosette, Kristina -
Thomas Keller -
Tim Ruiz