ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
  • From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:31:02 -0400

Chuck, I agree with both of your comments on #6. In other words, if we
delete the sentence. Implementation of the tripartite arrangement should
be contingent on this  then we can all "wonder where the yellow went." 

 

         

        6.      Representation 

                a.      All three groups must strive to fulfill
pre-established objective criteria regarding broadening outreach and
deepening participation from a diverse range of participants.
Implementation of the tripartite arrangement should be contingent on
this. [Gomes, Chuck]  I am okay with this except that I would prefer
deleting the reference to the tripartite arrangement; not sure why that
is there.  I would end it after 'participants. 

         

        b. All SGs must have rules and processes in place that make is
possible for any and all people and organizations eligible for the
Stakeholder Group to join, participate and be heard regardless of their
policy viewpoints [Gomes, Chuck]  I support this.

         

         

         

         



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy