Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal?

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mickey,

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012
(via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of
resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council
meeting on 20 December.

Best regards,

Julie

On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>uh oh.  this thread is splitting into separate ones.   so i'll just whack
>the whole thing and start with a blank slate.
>
>this is really helpful discussion.  i like Ray's historical perspective,
>Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there
>and Marika's recap of the task at hand.
>
>part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because
>while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP"
>topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a
>stretch from a scope standpoint.
>
>i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were
>asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea
>to push back on that one a bit.
>
>what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing
>that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of
>the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that
>remit and how things get submitted to us for review.  we also need make
>sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident.
>
>mikey
>
>
>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature