[governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please

[Adam Peake]

I think it would be more effective to keep it narrow and simply ask 
Nitin for an update (As Milton suggested). Para 71 is fine, until you 
get to "involve all stakeholders in their respective roles" and then 
it become a mess, I'm sure everyone remembers how ridiculously CS 
role was defined. The answers to the simple questions will tell us 
what we need to know to ask more.

The coordinators could just go ahead and do it, nothing controversial 
in just asking for an update (as suggested in early December when 
this first came up...)

Thanks,

Adam



At 5:58 PM +0100 1/9/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Adam Peake ha scritto:
>>Parminder, I think Milton's captured what we need.
>>
>>Short and to the point, and should bring the answer we need.   You 
>>probably need to spell out Internet Governace Caucus (IGC), but 
>>then it's done.
>
>Personally speaking, I agree as well. Bill's spelling out of what 
>exactly we want to know is fine, but we should try to keep this 
>letter into 2-3 paragraphs, so that the message is clear.
>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance