[gnso-restruc-dt] RE: Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

(i have moved this discussion to the restructuring list, as that
includes all council members as well as those others from the
constituencies who are acting as subs or additions from the
constituencies)



Hi,

I tend to think we should just talk through each of the proposed changes
in order finding out which ones have consensus, and then precede to
further discuss the ones, assuming there are some, that do not have
consensus.

It might be good for other proposed stakeholder groups to also redline
the proposed by-laws, perhaps starting from Philip's changes, so that we
have a complete set of proposed changes.

As soon as we get a meeting scheduled for the restructuring phone call,
we should put this as the first item on the agenda.

a.


On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 11:03 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response.  In my opinion, I think it would be
> helpful to clearly identify any deviances from the Board approved
> recommendations and that we should handle those separately from the rest
> of the text.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:51 AM
> > To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [council] Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > One is certainly - as the Board recommendations were 
> > predicated on events that have not come to pass.
> > 
> > 
> 


the messages refered to and the edit can be foiund in: 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06676.html

>