RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Where did the Working Group Processes section come from?  I've never
seen that text before and don't recall our discussing it.  (If I'm wrong
on the latter point, please let me know.)  With the exception of that
section, I'm fine with the motion.  I have no objection to changing the
time window to 90 days as Beau suggested.  I have no objection to Greg's
suggested amendment.  
 
As for the Working Group Processes section, I would prefer that it be
deleted.  If these are the processes to apply, the decision should be
made by the Council and should apply to all WGs - not just this one.
This is beyond our remit.  As for the substance itself, I believe the
more appropriate terminology for the minority report should be minority
statement.  The persons with the minority view aren't going to be
submitting their own report, right?  In that case, a "statement" is more
accurate.
 
I have no availability for a call before the 12th.  (I'm in SF for the
INTA Internet Forum and won't be back in DC until Thursday.)
 
K


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
        Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:18 PM
        To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion
        
        
        Dear All,
        
        As mentioned in my previous e-mail, please find attached a draft
motion for review. Please note that the motion will need to be provided
to the Council at the latest by Thursday 12 February in order to be
considered at the next GNSO Council meeting on 19 February. Please share
your comments and edits with the list.
        
        Best regards,
        
        Marika