<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO "Improvments"
Makes sense to me.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Ute Decker [mailto:udecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:02 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO
"Improvments"
Chuck,
Thank you, this is helpful. I think we are in agreement that we
want to base the motion on the Board resolution - so drop the
introductory 'Whereas it is expected that ICANN Board of Directors will
adopt recommendations for GNSO "Improvements' and go straight to the
Board resolution, - quoting the relevant section.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 June 2008 04:50
To: Ute Decker; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion for 25 June on GNSO
"Improvments"
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.
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|