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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The reason I added the last qualification is because of what Mikey said in his 
response to my suggested wording:  The Board is in the habit of asking the GNSO 
Council for advice with a short deadline and then treating it as a broader GNSO 
position.  I think that is inappropriate on the part of the Board but the 
reality is that it happens.  

At the same, time I wouldn't object if that qualifier was deleted as Wolf 
suggests.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:05 AM
To: Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marika Konings
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