RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report

["Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have no problem with including it.  I don't think it should be labeled
a "minority statement".

________________________________

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:04 PM
To: Griffin, Lance
Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report


I don't recall any such decision. Including it seems in line with 8.c.
of Annex A 
of the ByLaws (since no TF was actually formed for the PDP this WG is
part of).
And the SOW for this WG states:
 
Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include and
consider the varying points of view on key issues.  It is more important
that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for
every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of
members. 
 
So I have a hard time understanding any argument against not including
it.


Tim 




        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: RE: [SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05:  PRO WG
Report
        From: "Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Fri, June 22, 2007 4:33 pm
        To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        
        I think we discussed this already.

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
        Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 11:38 AM
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG
Report
        
        
        Why?
        
        Tim 
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05:
PRO WG Report
                From: "Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Fri, June 22, 2007 11:31 am
                To: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                Liz:
                
                I do not agree that this should be called a "minority
statement". 
                
                -Lance  
                
                -----Original Message-----
                From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&fo
lder=INBOX&uid=100836#Compose>  [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&fo
lder=INBOX&uid=100836#Compose> ]
                On Behalf Of Liz Williams
                Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:31 AM
                To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&fo
lder=INBOX&uid=100836#Compose> 
                Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO
WG Report
                
                Colleagues
                
                I have omitted, in error, Tim Ruiz' minority statement
which he wanted
                included in the PRO WG report.
                
                It is attached here for your information and for
consideration within
                the PRO WG discussion on 23 June.
                
                After the meeting, I will amend the posted report to
ensure that it's
                included as part of the record within the report.
                
                Kind regards.
                
                Liz