ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

RE: [council] Council procedures

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Council procedures
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:10:10 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <0B1AACC10C224613A3B8F69BD83566E4@PSEVO>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070282A697@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <9810D4032D56497F86F6ED0CD2DAC372@PSEVO> <871F5A61-4B26-4E16-A72F-B3D3035C4409@acm.org> <0B1AACC10C224613A3B8F69BD83566E4@PSEVO>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Aclw3b5TuJ+xIyL7RD6ygsUiM52qHgAAK0KgAADZ52A=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Council procedures

Good examples of the advantage of having predrafted motions without
seconds and sometimes even without a mover are motions related to the
initiation of a PDP.

Personally, I think the benefits of having predrafted motions without
movers or seconds exceed any problems that may cause.  Just my opinion.
Clearly, that should be done with care to avoid overcomplicating our
business.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:47 AM
> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Council procedures
> 
> 
> Thanks Avri ... I'm fine with a wiki as a tool to aid drafting.
> Its just that by the eve of a meeting I would like to be 
> clear on what motions stand a chance of success and command support.
> 
> I see no merit in consulting my constituency on a motion that 
> may never actually be valid - especially if there are other 
> better / simpler ones there in place.
> 
> We need to be clear on what we strive for, not hedge our bets 
> and sow confusion along the way.
> That's all
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 




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