<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20
- To: "icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:41:32 -0500
Agree. We should disband. And agree with Palage that it certainly has been one
of the more interesting WGs. Like Michael, while pleased with the result I have
nagging concerns about the long-term procedural implications of the board
making policy without a recommendation from a WG, even when it has made the
right decision and even when it is obvious that vested economic interests can
block consensus in a WG. This is not criticism of the board just pondering
ICANN's policy making methods...
Happy to see one less list to monitor. And happy to see that Erik BW is being a
good sport!
Ciao
>I agree that there is nothing else this WG should do, and it should be
>disbanded. Curious to know if there are any different views in the WG or on
>Council.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|