RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

On the contents:

> > "While the WG has not identified exact examples there is a general 
> > feeling that some exceptions could be granted."

I think that this formulation is better than mine, for the reasons given by
Tim and endorsed by others.
I gave examples only to explain what I meant, but the examples in themselves
were not meant to be exhaustive, so let's strike them out.


On the process:

I really don't understand what is the issue in letting the Board know, at
the eve of their meeting, where we are.
I fully understand that our reference is the Council, and I agree that this
is the formal path to be used, but I am a bit worried by the schizophreny we
express by, on one hand, applying short informal procedures and processes to
produce results, while on the other hand we become suddenly formal in the
reporting of what we did.
I agree that our bullet point list does not add to what the Board already
knows. But on the other hand, what is the harm in reiterating the message?
If the decision is not to send the message to the Board, fine, the co-chairs
will comply with it. Which would not exclude, anyway, that one of the
co-chairs reports (on a personal level) on the results of the WG. In
summary, what I don't understand is why any member of the internet community
can send a message to the Board on the eve of a crucial decision except a WG
that wants to report on months of activity focused on the subject (in terms
of resource expenditure, we can surely talk about person/years of focused
work by this WG).

Cheers,
Roberto