Re: RES: RES: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi 

I'm in full agreement with Mr. Wagner-PowerSelf on the below points.

Cheers

Bill


On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:

> My preference as to the liaison question: 1) Four liaisons as above; 2) Two 
> liaisons, one of each house; 2) One single liaison. But the existence of a 
> liaison or many does not preclude the CCWG which I think is a more effective 
> mechanism to foster understanding (I’m not saying agreement).

> So, my position is to favor informal, individual GAC member participation in 
> CCWGs, with the consideration that they are not representing formal positions 
> of their countries but bringing an informed and legitimate point of view. 
> Moreover, the same applies to GNSO participants in these CCWGs.