<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-osc-csg] FW: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII
- To: <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] FW: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:11:30 -0400
Here's a possible issue that the Constitunency/Stakeholder Group WT
needs to consider as part of its tasks.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:10 AM
To: 'Alan Greenberg'; Council GNSO
Cc: 'Ray Fassett'; 'Olga Cavalli'
Subject: RE: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII
Good point Alan. This sounds to be like an issue that may need to be
considered by the GNSO Operations and/or the GNSO
Constituency/Stakeholder Group WTs under the OSC, so I cc'd the chairs
of those teams.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:23 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Bylaw revisions - Article VII
>
>
> We are working on the proposed Bylaw revisions for Articles X and XX,
> and have been promised revisions related to Annex A, but unless I
> missed it, we have had no discussion at all about Article VII,
> regarding how Nominating Committee delegates are selected. Since the
> seven GNSO delegates are tied to the current Constituencies (2 for the
> BC and 1 for each other Constituency), this would surely have to
> change in the new model. At first glance, this is potentially a
> controversial issue.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|