ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Rationale of thresholds for initiating issues reports and PDPs

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Rationale of thresholds for initiating issues reports and PDPs
  • From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 20:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=oiV5WEI/cRrBm+5wu3KmMYbSAOl07ChdKG1iSPio8LAP/gLxTcDqh+k+Wk775LpqQooIAM6m+iFUxzpZe6bozYgmKQ0ATKLl8Jp1eVVTwKGX88BdLfYolN8IcFh3HFBbY/39t654OcHciRseNH4vYevm4UPCLXMiaX/hDQolpBI=;
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB54046D4C7F@balius.mit>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello Bruce,

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
> 
> I believe this was to prevent the GNSO Council becoming a
> barrier for
> 2-3 constituencies deciding to investigate a matter.   
> 
[snip]

> I note that none of these issues appeared to come up in the
> GNSO review
> process - ie the thresholds for issues reports did not seem to
> come up
> as an area of concern.   So I am assuming that the Board will
> not wish
> to change them.

It makes perfect sense.

I note that you carefully :) set aside in your next email my
first consclusion and question about the weighted vote: Is there
any type of vote where each registry and registrar rep does not
count for 2 votes, or is it so for all votes the council take?
thanks,

Mawaki

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>