Re: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Same here. Thanks Jonathan and David.

Amr

On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:36 AM, David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This sounds very sensible to me. 
> 
> David
> 
> On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:51 pm, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>>  
>> This needs to be tidied up . The motions appear identical but mine actually 
>> has a couple of minor changes to the wording.
>>  
>> Therefore, I propose the following:
>>  
>> 1.       That my wording is a friendly amendment to David’s motion 
>> (hopefully acceptable to David & Amr)
>> 2.       I withdraw my motion and we remove the confusion of the two (near) 
>> identical motions.
>>  
>> Thanks,
>>  
>>  
>> Jonathan
>>  
>> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: 25 August 2014 23:43
>> To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Cake; Marika Konings; Glen de Saint Gery
>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC
>> Importance: High
>>  
>> Hi,
>>  
>> It seems we have two identical motions regarding appointment of GNSO liaison 
>> to the GAC (one by David and one by Jonathan). I am happy to second either 
>> one or both, if a seconding is still necessary. :)
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Amr
>>  
>> On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>>  
>> Please see attached for a motion for consideration at the forthcoming 
>> Council meeting on 4thSeptember 2014.
>>  
>> The motion relates to the Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental 
>> Advisory Committee
>>  
>> The motion will need to be seconded.
>>  
>> Thank-you,
>>  
>>  
>> Jonathan
>> <Motion - Appointment of GNSO Liaison to the GAC (25 August 2014).docx>
>