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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds good to me.  I had seconded David's original motion, and hereby second 
the amended version, if necessary.

J.


From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Organization: Afilias
Reply-To: "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:20
To: 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'David 
Cake' <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
'Glen de Saint Gery' <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC

All,

Noting that David's motion has now been amended here:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+04+September+2014

I hereby withdraw my motion.

Thanks,


Jonathan

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 September 2014 10:17
To: David Cake
Cc: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Marika Konings; Glen de 
Saint Gery
Subject: Re: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC

Same here. Thanks Jonathan and David.

Amr

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


This sounds very sensible to me.

David

On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:51 pm, Jonathan Robinson 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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>