RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q15 on transitional charters

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think the parenthetical comment is necessary but wouldn't oppose
it.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:54 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q15 on transitional charters
> 
> 
> Article XX, Section 5, Transition Article, Item 3
> 
> 
> Item 3 proposed changes from the document :
> 
> 
> 3. Notwithstanding the adoption of these Bylaws Amendments, 
> each GNSO Constituency described in paragraph 2 above shall 
> continue operating substantially as before and no 
> Constituency official, working group, or other activity shall 
> be changed until further action of the Constituency, provided 
> that each GNSO Constituency shall submit to the ICANN 
> Secretary a new or revised Charter (which may itself of 
> necessity be a transitional Charter) inclusive of its 
> operating procedures, adopted according to the Constituency's 
> processes and consistent with these Bylaws Amendments, no 
> later than the ICANN meeting in October 2009.
> 
> 
> Q15 Should the parenthetical clause (which may itself of 
> necessity be a transitional Charter) be retained?
> 
> *      Alternatively should it be replace with, (which may be 
> a Board  
> approved transitional charter)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>