<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Motion on AOC review teams etc.
- To: <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [gnso-arr-dt] Motion on AOC review teams etc.
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:59:44 +0200
Hi Bill, welcome back!
I wouldn't weaken that requirement. I'm sure the GNSO will be able to
nominate 4 candidates - maybe not all coming from different SGs (which I
personally think will be unlikely).
Regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_____
Von: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Mai 2010 16:04
An: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Motion on AOC review teams etc.
Last one for the day...
On May 12, 2010, at 10:54 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The GNSO council:
* Asks that both Review Teams shall be staffed with 4 GNSO
representatives
Should we have a qualifier to address the possibility that for these RTs
and perhaps others in the future the Council might not in fact put
forward four nominations, e.g. if a given SG doesn't endorse, or two
endorse the same person?
Bill
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|