<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: FW: [registrars] Registrar Statement
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: FW: [registrars] Registrar Statement
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:04:41 -0400
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcZlfS7W0Sfra8hFQXe5Q+iG//0fUgAAQZkg
- Thread-topic: FW: [registrars] Registrar Statement
After discussing with the other Task Force representatives, the
amendment offered by Marcus is unfriendly. With that said, I would be
happy to discuss the issue to see if there is any room for a consensus
position. Thanks. Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: Re: FW: [registrars] Registrar Statement
At 12:25 PM 4/21/06, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
>Bob:
>
>As we have the three endorsements, is it fair to assume that the 14 day
>clock is ticking?
Dear Jon: Oh, yes, the clock is ticking. Your motion as modified to
accommodate one friendly amendment is before the "house".
I believe that there is one additional amendment which has not yet been
classified as either friendly or unfriendly.
Regards, BobC
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jon
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|