Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I see Wolf's point but I believe leaving out the phrase will not actually avoid 
the issue. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Received: Tuesday, 02 Jul 2013, 10:05am
To: Holly Raiche [h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
CC: Marika Konings [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter


Good morning!

I'm fine with Chuck's rewording except for the last part "... as a
representative of the GNSO as a whole?".

I'm convinced that a discussion about the role of the council vs (and of)
the GNSO is necessary and urgent but I wonder whether this debate may
overload the WG mandate.
It should definitely be discussed during the coming GNSO review.

My suggestion to question 4: "Under what circumstances, if any, may  the
GNSO Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board?"

Nevertheless I would join any wording which makes early mornings in Down
Under more convenient :-)

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Holly Raiche
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:50 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

Folks

If there is one thing I do NOT want to do, it is have another 5.00am meeting
in two days time (particularly since I have a 1.00am call that morning!)

SOOooo

From what I have gathered from the emails, there are really only two changes
to the charter that Marika sent out (and thank you Marika for the very quick
turn around)

The first is really wording - first spotted by Eduardo and then cleaned up a
bit

The other was question 4 - and from the emails, I think people are happy to
go with ChucK's rewording of it.

I have incorporated those changes only into a clean copy - and what I want
from everyone is either confirmation that this is what can go forward, or
not (and if not, please, what do you want changed - with proposed wording -
and why)  Otherwise, if I don't hear from you, this is what we proceed with

And thank you one and all for your time, diligence and patience

Holly













________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.