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

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

Please see my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:38 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> 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

Chuck:  I think you mean 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATION; SECTION 3. GNSO COUNCIL'
> 
> 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.

Chuck:  I thought the same thing when I first read this but I believe
that this item is only dealing with what happens to the existing
constituency seats, so I do not believe they are inconsistent.  Does
that make sense?

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>