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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Then to clarify I suggest that XX.5.d be modified as follows:

d. The three seats currently assigned to the Non-Commercial 
Users Constituency shall be reassigned as three *of the six* 
seats of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

Added the text between the asterisks.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, June 09, 2009 7:26 am
To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

 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 <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.


Hi,

I don't know.  I read that to mean that the 3 from NCUC were to be 
assigned as three of the (six) NCSG.  but I am will certainly fix the 
wording.  Any suggestions?

thanks

a.

On 9 Jun 2009, at 13:38, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Avri,
>
> These two items do not jive. Shouldn't the latter be changed to
> "...increased to be six..."?
>
> Article X Section 1:
> d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
> Group; and
>
> Article XX Section 5:
> d. The three seats currently assigned to the Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency shall be reassigned as three seats of the Non-Commercial
> 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:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
>
> 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 course
> 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 vote.
> 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 friendly
> 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 will
> 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:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>