[gnso-osc-ops] RE: Council Rules of Procedures (RoP)

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Works for me, Ray.  But, I would also add that there is another date
possibility, i.e., the GNSO itself determines a date certain for us. 

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: owner-ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ray Fassett
Sent: 2009-10-27 03:23
To: 'Ron Andruff'; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Council Rules of Procedures (RoP)

 

I take it this is replacing the previous motion to the change the language?
i.e. is not an additional motion.please confirm.

 

I can support this at the will of the Council.

 

I would set 11/18 or 11/25 if this is acceptable.  This is gives us two or
three WT discussions to arrive at a sound proposal.  Open to suggestion.

 

Glen:  Looks like the power point is changing again :-)

 

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:16 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; ray@xxxxxxxxx; ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Council Rules of Procedures (RoP)

 

I support this revised motion.

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: owner-ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2009-10-27 03:04
To: ray@xxxxxxxxx; ntfy-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Council Rules of Procedures (RoP)

 

Ray:

 

from the discussion within the CSG it turned out that there are still
questions open with regard how abstentions should be counted in the voting
process. The council (through the working team) is requested to review this
point and come back with a revised proposal after a fixed short period of
time. The related current draft motion would be approved with keeping the
existing text as status quo until the revised text is been accepted.

 

My intention for tomorrows council meeting is to come up with the revised
motion as attached.

 

Please feed back

- whether this is acceptable

- with setting a date where this point could e resolved

 

Thanks

Wolf-Ulrich