ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: AW: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures


I put it in, but reworded it a bit. I think it still says the same thing, but please confirm.


On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:13, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

To cover the ongoing discussion it is intended to withdraw the motion on the amendment and amend the motion itself in the way as attached. I'll insert a revision deadline after having coordinated with the work team.

Is that acceptable?

Best regards


Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2009 02:00
An: Rosette, Kristina; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures

The motion to amend the motion specifically deals with the abstention issue. If the amendment does not pass, then we could add language like that.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:51 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures


It is my understanding from our discussion yesterday that we had rough consensus on voting to adopt the updated Council Operating Procedures, but to state in the motion that certain areas remain outstanding (e.g., abstentions) and to require that those areas be priority work to be completed by a date certain.

Two questions:

1.  Is that correct?

2.  What areas, other than abstentions, remain outstanding?

I'll start drafting a substitute motion once I've heard back from enough of you so that I'm comfortable I'm on the right track.



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