<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
- To: "'Rosette, Kristina'" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
- From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 15:30:20 +0000
I have to object as well, for the reasons stated in my prior email, which was
circulated to the group prior to Holly’s executive decision. I don’t think
this question should be in the charter as it currently stands. It is far too
broad and ambiguous and extends well beyond the remit of the WG.
I would prefer to work this out on the list, so that I can stand behind the
charter as drafted
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
I am troubled by the fact that this executive decision about wording was made
barely 18 hours after the last call and well before the “23.59 UTC on Tuesday 2
July. “ set forth in Marika’s email.
From:
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:49 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
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>
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that,
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in
this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|