<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:31:26 -0500
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcldZgwxSjrwxKmBRzCpTSVjSbM5QwABBsuj
- Thread-topic: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
That would be fine Avri.
Chuck
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 04:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
Hi Chuck,
If the council is ready to vote on your motion, then i think it would
be appropriate to amend it to include the date for voting on the PDP,
i.e. the pro-forma motion one I am offering can be folded into yours
as a friendly amendment if you accept it.
On the other hand if the council is not ready to vote on yours or if
it fails in a vote, then my pro-forma motion can stand as it is. I.e.
my motion can be contingent on yours.
Would that be ok?
a.
On 12 Dec 2008, at 17:41, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thanks Avri. If my alternative motion passes, I would suggest what I
> hope would be a friendly amendment that would change 8 January 2009 to
> 29 January 2009. That would give Staff until 15 January to provide
> the
> clarification that my motion seeks.
>
> I am comfortable waiting until we see whether my motion is seconded
> and
> passes.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:43 AM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on
>> Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It was mentioned that in keeping with our current practice
>> of being explicit with timings as much as possible, we
>> should be more specific about when we will take the required
>> PDP votes after receiving an Issues report. This motion is
>> intended to fill that gap.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Moved by: Avri Doria
>> Seconded:
>>
>> Whereas:
>>
>> An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has
>> been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council.
>>
>> Resolve:
>>
>> The GNSO Council members will consult with their
>> constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other
>> possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January 2009.
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|