Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q16 on specific dates in by-laws transitional section

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that a specific date would be hard to define, but I would suggest we
use a phrase like "no later than". Like any project, if the date is left
completely blank, it makes it harder to see it through.

Stéphane


Le 14/05/09 01:24, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> I prefer not specifying a date and saying something like "a date to be
> determined by the Board" but could live with a specific date if others
> like that better.
> 
> 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] Q16 on specific dates in by-laws
>> transitional section
>> 
>> 
>> Article XX, Section 5, Transition Article, Items 3 & 4 (and
>> elsewhere in the document)
>> 
>> 
>> Items 3 & 4 as well as elsewhere in the document, a specific
>> month is given for GNSO restructure implementation.  It was
>> previously June
>> 2009 and it has been proposed to change it to October 2009.
>> 
>> 
>> Q16 Should we include a specific date, including a day, for
>> when the implementation will occur?
>> 
>> *      Instead of including a date, should we refer to "a date to be
>> determined by the Board"?
>> 
>> *      Or should we include something like this: "No later then
>> (insert date TBD by Board)"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>