ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es

Hi,
I have sent a question to the Legal Counsel asking if there was any by-law based reason why this 
would not be allowed.

thanks

a.

On 2 sep 2007, at 22.36, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree that we can and should slightly expedite the motion so that progress can be made in Los Angeles. 

Robin

Adrian Kinderis wrote:


All,

It seems to me to be valid to have this issue and motion expedited to
ensure that it is reviewed and decided upon by those that have followed 
the process and that is concluded at the LA meeting.

Regards,

Adrian Kinderis
Managing Director
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com

The information contained in this communication is intended for the
named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action 
in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2007 6:58 PM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force -
with Whereas'es

I second the motion to expedite the process by three days. This seems
absoletely reasonable to me since it will enable the council to finish 
its work on this PDP at the LA meeting.

Best,

tom

Am 31.08.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:


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





Gruss,

tom

(__)        (OO)_____  (oo)    /|\      A cow is not entirely full of
 | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
 w w w  w
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>