RE: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
While the IPC agrees with the points raised in the preamble, we think the timeline set in the resolution is a bit unrealistic. The Board needs to act in the best interest of the corporation. They have a fiduciary duty to do so. Delaying action until March may be too long and not in the best interest of getting the lawsuits settled. We are also not convinced by the merits of a PDP on the issues mentioned in paragraph 2 but will not oppose the suggested wording if all other constituencies wish to keep it. Our proposed amendments are reproduced in attachment. Niklas -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: jeudi 1 décembre 2005 21:34 To: Philip Sheppard; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Proposed amendment to BC resolution. I have heard from one or two of you that you would prefer to separate the resolution into two segments. I believe this is easy to do, and can support that. . I urge all constituencies to discuss this resolution. It is the BC intent to call for a supporting vote for the resolution, with the idea of separating the call for the PDP/issues report from the board resolution. -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57 To:council@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Council members, please find attached from the Bc a proposed draft Council motion on the Verisign settlement. This follows the constituency presentations at the Verisign review meeting and proposes the board delay adoption until the council has considered the GNSO related aspects arising from the settlement. We hope this provides a full day for Constituencies to consider the proposed motion before Council might adopt it. Philip Regards, Marilyn Cade Attachment:
GNSO Council Verisign settlement_IPCcomments_01122005.doc |