<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es
- Subject: Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:56:34 -0400
- Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <002501c7ebcd$5ea71620$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <0E9F6EC3-5991-452A-A7D7-01928F80C5E8@acm.org> <46D808B4.3090707@tucows.com> <002501c7ebcd$5ea71620$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
Philip Sheppard wrote:
I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period timetable
proposed by
the Council chair.
Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the
amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as
unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC.
If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it
becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it, then
vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion.
Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days is
hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your
rhetorical skills.
--
Regards,
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|