<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.
My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with
the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet.
Stéphane
Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs'
> response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you
> accept this as friendly.
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37
> An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
>
> I am accepting one of Adrian’s suggested amendments to this motion as
> friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested
> amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is needed.
>
> Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>>
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> From: Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Motion re. VI WG
>
>
> << File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >>
>
> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet
> the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and
> would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and
> constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October.
>
> I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a
> motion is a clear way to kick it off.
>
> Chuck
>
> <Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|