ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] FW: Prioritization process

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] FW: Prioritization process
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 08:27:34 -0400

Agree Stephane.  But I first want to get the sense of the WPM DT members 
because I don't recall us ever discussing this directly.


        From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:58 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: 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 
                        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 of ALAC.
                        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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy