[gnso-review-dt] RE: Planning for Plan B

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

The sign off approach to a letter seems like a reasonable idea to me.  We could 
also include listing of any WP members who object to specific aspects of the 
letter.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:25 AM
To: Jen Wolfe
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Amr Elsadr
Subject: Planning for Plan B

Hi

Looking good, thanks for the edits and renumbering.  One clarification please:

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to 
> the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will 
> notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that 
> a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and 
> comment.

Seeing J. Scott's message this morning, it may be that we can't get consensus 
within the WP as step 1.  If we are also thinking that there would need to be a 
consensual endorsement for Councilors as step 2 (I'm not entirely clear on 
this) then the chances of being able to send a WP text probably slip further.  
In the event, how should the interested parties proceed?

I can't see any reason for each group that agrees with the text to go off on 
its own and spend cycles trying to rewrite the same thoughts into its own 
language.  Too much else to do and too little time.  Why not instead simply 
have a sign on to this letter by the coalition of the willing?  That way we 
could get something sent off before the OEC's Monday meeting.

Bill