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