ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Clarification of Comments

  • To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Clarification of Comments
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:24:32 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <43CD8560.706@tucows.com>
  • References: <43CD8560.706@tucows.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hi,

I agree with this completely. we should not presume that the staff manager cannot do the report. If they can't or if the report is deficient in some way, which is _not_ my expectation, then we would need to figure out what to do next, but I see no reason not to follow the normal process at this point.

a.

On 17 jan 2006, at 19.01, Ross Rader wrote:

That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to. In our policy development process, the next step is to request the creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation will not be met. In the event that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining outside help, etc.




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