RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
- To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:53:14 +0200
I do not believe my discussion paper denigrated the nom com.
It stated an historic fact "Their number (3) is a function of the present GNSO
and an open issue "Their relevance in a reformed structure is unclear". This
references the fact the formal nom com review is incomplete and that we do not
shape of the next GNSO structure.