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

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Everyone

In the interests of my sleep, I am making an executive decision to adopt 
Chuck's wording of question 4 (based on the reasoning that has been expressed), 
as follows:
Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations or 
state positions to the Board as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?

The other suggestion I will accept is the suggestion to amend the motion (made 
by Chuck) giving a time line of 7 days for a response.

Marika - would you please make those two changes.

That done, we still do not need the next call (and I can sleep)

Thanks

Holly



On 02/07/2013, at 10:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>