<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
Hi,
that is a really good question.
If we present this as an amendment on our recommendations, then I
believe it would have to go to the Board.
If it was just a request from the GNSO council that the Staff consider
this as a practical issue in the next revision, then it would be
numbered one among many things where the plans deviated from the
original GNSO recommendations and the Board would have to take it into
account when approving the implementation plan. Of course on this
issue at least, the Staff would have the ability to show that this
change was made on our request.
That is my first estimation on it. Of course it is another issue
where the advise of counsel could be helpful. These days we are
having so many questions like that it would really be good to have a
member of the legal staff assigned to help us with these thorny issues.
On a practical manner, we have an incredibly full meeting that I am
not sure to fit this issue in - not if we need any amount of
discussion on it.
a.
On 17 Dec 2008, at 18:34, Tim Ruiz wrote:
May sound strange coming from me since I supported this idea
initially,
but after all the comments that have been submitted (still reading
them)
and the criticisms that have been made, is it wise for us to try and
hurry this up in any way?
And a couple of procedural questions:
1) What is the threshold for Council approval?
2) Will the Board have to also approve this?
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Motion regarding New gTLDs
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:37 am
To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Avri,
I just realized that the attached motion regarding the 4-month
communication period that I submitted on 21 November has been left off
the agenda for our Council meeting tomorrow.
Chuck
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|