ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.

  • To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>, <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:34:52 -0400

Should we seek clarification from the SIC?  In the meantime, I strongly
suggest that we go ahead and send the proposed Bylaws changes to the
constituencies as quickly as possible and that we flag this (with a note
or footnote) along with any other areas where additional work may be
needed such as the comments I just sent.


        From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:27 AM
        To: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.

        We won't know how other 3 will be chosen till Board approves SG
charter or makes some other decision.
        Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
        Cc: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
        Sent: Tue Jun 09 05:09:30 2009
        Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
        I don't know.  I read that to mean that the 3 from NCUC were to
        assigned as three of the (six) NCSG.  but I am will certainly
fix the 
        wording.  Any suggestions?
        On 9 Jun 2009, at 13:38, Tim Ruiz wrote:
        > Avri,
        > These two items do not jive. Shouldn't the latter be changed
        > "...increased to be six..."?
        > Article X Section 1:
        > d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial
        > Group; and
        > Article XX Section 5:
        > d. The three seats currently assigned to the Non-Commercial
        > Constituency shall be reassigned as three seats of the
        > Stakeholder Group.
        > Tim
        > -------- Original Message --------
        > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
        > From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
        > Date: Mon, June 08, 2009 5:34 pm
        > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        > Hi,
        > I have edited the text. It can be found at:
        > I think I caught it all but it needs to be checked.
        > In terms of motions and voting, I propose the following:
        > - the motion included below be put in the schedule of 24 June.
I will
        > put myself down as the person making the motion. It will of
        > need a second.
        > - any wording changes that we can reach consensus on on this
list, can
        > be treated as friendly amendments and just put in before the
        > Since I will be making the motion of behalf of this team, it
is the
        > consensus of this team that will indicate whether it is a
        > amendment or not.
        > - any changes we cannot reach consensus on, can be voted on as
        > amendments before voting on the main motion. Of course someone
        > have to make and second these motions.
        > By doing this, we can both present the rough consensus
position to the
        > Board as well as the results of any minority positions.
        > The motion:
        > Whereas
        > Insert long history here that includes, review, BCG, Board
approval of
        > BCG, work of the team of the whole and SIC response:
(hopefully staff
        > can help in writing this chronology)
        > Resolved
        > The GNSO recommends that the By-laws related to the GNSO
council be
        > amended to read as follows:
        > insert the text either by inclusion or reference:
        > thanks
        > a.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy