RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] FW: Prioritization process
- To: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] FW: Prioritization process
- From: "Jaime Plug In" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 08:48:00 -0300
I agree both with Chuck and Stéphane. Think the Council will agree too.
Cel (51) 8126-0916
Fax (51) 3123-1708
De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome
de Stéphane Van Gelder
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 3 de maio de 2010 07:58
Para: Gomes, Chuck
Assunto: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] FW: Prioritization process
I think you should be putting the question to the Council as a whole, not
restricting it to this WG.
My own take: I agree that it would be great to have both Alan and Andrei
participate in this.
Le 3 mai 2010 à 06:26, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Note the question asked by Alan regarding whether or not liaisons would
participate in the prioritization exercise and note that I responded by
saying that I assumed they would and added that I thought that our
non-voting Councilor would participate as well, Andrei. Olga confirmed the
same view. I thought it would be a good idea to make sure everyone on the
WPM DT felt the same. If anyone disagrees, please speak up.
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Prioritization process
No question about Andrei (in my mind). He is a full Council member (but no
vote). But I am a not-a-council-member-but-treated-like-one. ;-)
At 29/04/2010 10:21 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
That would be my assumption Alan.
I would also assume Andrei would participate.
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gomes, Chuck; olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Apr 29 15:45:52 2010
Subject: Prioritization process
Chuck (as Council Chair) and Olga (as WPM-DT chair),
I have been asked to draft a comment on the prioritization effort on behalf
In your minds, is it the intent that the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council
participate in the prioritization process? Based on the Bylaw definition of
the Liaison as:
"Liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote, to make or second
motions, or to serve as an officer on the GNSO Council, but otherwise
liaisons shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of
the GNSO Council."
I am assuming that I or my namesake will be a full-fledged participant.