RE: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO "Improvments"

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ute, 
 
Here is the wording of the resolution by the Board: "Resolved
(2008.02.15.03), the ICANN Board directs staff to open a public comment
forum for 30 days on the GNSO Improvements Report, draft a detailed
implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation
of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and
community for further consideration of the implementation plan. "
 
It doesn't seem like your proposed change is terribly significant to me,
but I don't understand why you would want to delete something that was
in the passed resolution.  Maybe what we should do is quote the
resolution (as copied above) in its entirety.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ute Decker [mailto:udecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:51 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO
"Improvments"
        
        

        Avri, 

        Chuck, 

         

        While this motion is still up in the air (apologies if I have
missed a consolidated version) let me suggest a further change.  I
propose to leave out the first phrase and start directly with: 

         

        'Whereas the Board resolution directed ICANN staff..'.  That
would make it (editing your initial text - without  prejudice to also
including further changes you propose below): 

         

         Whereas Board resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN Staff
in consultation
        > with  GNSO  to develop an implementation plan
        >
        > And whereas such a plan was developed by the Planning Team
composed of
        > staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation,
        >
        > Therefore:
        >
        > The GSNO Council approves the Framework defined in GNSO
Improvements -
        > Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO
Improvements
        > Planning Team as documented in (url) and request that
constituencies
        > and nomcom appointees begin the task of naming representatives
to
        > serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top
Level Plan.
        >
        
        The reason for this proposed change is that a 'whereas' of
course states the basis for a motion, i.e. something that is done and
established.  I see no merit in stating an expectation as the basis for
a motion and would feel more comfortable supporting the motion in this
shorter version. 

         

        Best wishes

        Ute

         

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: 22 June 2008 07:09
        To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
        Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO
"Improvments"

         

        You are correct Avri but some may remember the goal in the plan.
Your call.
        
        Chuck
        
        
        Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
        
         -----Original Message-----
        From:   Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
        Sent:   Sunday, June 22, 2008 02:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
        To:     Council GNSO
        Subject:        Re: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on
GNSO "Improvments"
        
        
        Hi Chuck,
        
        I have no problem adding 'by 27 June' to the end of the last
sentence 
        as this is the date indicated in the plan, though I thought the
last 
        sentence had already covered it by stating.
        
        "... request(s) that constituencies and nomcom appointees begin
the 
        task of naming representatives to
        serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top Level
Plan.
        
        Or are you suggesting anther change I am not understanding?
        
        thanks
        
        a.
        
        
        On 22 Jun 2008, at 07:41, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
        
        > Avri,
        >
        > It looks good to me except it might be helpful to request that

        > constituencies identify one member each foe each of the two
steering 
        > committees by the Council meeting on 25 June if possible.
        >
        > Chuck
        >
        >
        > Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
        >
        >  -----Original Message-----
        > From:   Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
        > Sent:   Saturday, June 21, 2008 05:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
        > To:     Council GNSO
        > Subject:        [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO 
        > "Improvments"
        >
        >
        > Hi
        >
        > Based on my understanding of the results of today's meeting, I
have
        > drafted the following motion.
        >
        > thanks
        >
        > a.
        >
        >
        > Motion:   Avri Doria
        > Second:
        >
        >
        > Whereas it is expected that ICANN Board of Directors will
adopt
        > recommendations for GNSO "Improvements" and in response to
Board
        > resolution 2008.02.15.03 that directed the ICANN Staff in
consultation
        > with  GNSO  to develop an implementation plan
        >
        > And whereas such a plan was developed by the Planning Team
composed of
        > staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation,
        >
        > Therefore:
        >
        > The GSNO Council approves the Framework defined in GNSO
Improvements -
        > Top Level Plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO
Improvements
        > Planning Team as documented in (url) and request that
constituencies
        > and nomcom appointees begin the task of naming representatives
to
        > serve in the two Standing Committees as defined in the Top
Level Plan.
        >
        >
        >
        >