<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
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
Avri,
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
structure".
and an open issue "Their relevance in a reformed structure is unclear". This
last remark
references the fact the formal nom com review is incomplete and that we do not
know the
shape of the next GNSO structure.
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|