Hi,
Just so it's clear, the "major change" I refer is related to not changing the texts that has been included in WS1 proposal during WS2.
So if it's agreed in WS1 that certain things will be done, it won't be good enough to change those in WS2 and that's one of the reason why anything that goes into WS1 should be what has agreed to be needed and realistic.
I don't really care whether it's the same thing with what Greg wrote but it's one of my rationale for adding a +1 to his statement.
Hope that helps.
Regards
I am not sure that Greg's statement can be read as "no major change". I fully support his assessment of where we are (which is that we come from different starting points).
We need to understand (and if necessary define) what the objective is.
Then we need to come to consensus on a high-level statement to incorporate as a By-Law.
Then, in WS2, we must "give colour and depth" to the high-level statement.
On 06-Aug-15 15:12, Seun Ojedeji wrote:_______________________________________________
I like to add my +1 to Greg on this one; Committing to a general HR
statement that is not clearly scored/defined could be dangerous,
especially as we would not like any major change to be done on
anything that has been agreed upon in WS1
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4