Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.

[elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

here is my acceptance (from safari and lucky to find some stray packets 
:-)). I accept this nomination and would be proud to serve on nomcom.

As for conflict of interest, I am not aware of an potential conflicts of 
interest that would interfere with my election to the nominating 
committee. Should my situation or interests change, I will immediately 
disclose as much for review by the constituency.

I apologize for not including a longer statement as to my 
qualifications, but right now I am blowing ants off of my keyboard 
(hoping they don't sneak in). Thanks all.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Regards

Bhavin Turakhia wrote:
> I believe elliotts nomination should be accepted too. And this brings me to
> one more point. Maybe the bylaw revision committee can incorporate the
> ability to provide such flexibility by a decision from the ex-com
>
> - bhavin
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:40 AM
> > To: Robert F. Connelly
> > Cc: Registrars Constituency; RC Voting Members
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, 
> > BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.
> >
> > Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Nomcom Representative:
> > >
> > > Nominations were opened on 1 December 2004. 
> > >
> > > Tom Barrett was nominated on 13 December 2004, he accepted and was 
> > > seconded.  He has submitted his conflict of interest statement.
> > >
> > > Elliot Noss was nominated and seconded on 20 December 2004. 
> >
> > We have 
> >
> > > not received his acceptance and conflict of interest statement.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The Rules are confusing because they refer to a nomination as a 
> > > "motion".  The text had been cut and pasted from the section on 
> > > Motions.  Note the reference in red,  *call for motion and call for 
> > > discussion*, which make little sense for a nomination.  However, it 
> > > would appear that the drafters intended to have nominations 
> >
> > held open 
> >
> > > for 14 days.  That said, Elliot's nomination came after the 
> >
> > closing.  
> >
> > > I propose that we either elect Tom Barrett by acclamation 
> >
> > or that I post a ballot with only one candidate.
> >
> > > I await your comments.
> >
> > I'd like to formally request a "bend" of the rules to allow 
> > Elliot's nomination. In addition to a heavy travel schedule 
> > this month, I've been laid up with a minor, but confining, 
> > injury. As a result, I haven't been in the office since 
> > November :) Compounding this is the fact that Elliot is still 
> > in Africa and hasn't had great connectivity over the past week. 
> > Although I know he has every intention of accepting his 
> > nomination and I'd do it on his behalf if I could, I can't 
> > guarantee when he will do so.
> >
> > I know this sounds like a hard luck story, but these are the 
> > facts :). 
> > Special consideration in this instance would be appreciated, 
> > but I also understand this might not be possible.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your consideration,
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                       -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> > Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
> > Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: 
> > http://www.byte.org