RE: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If my understanding is correct, Wolf has since withdrawn this proposed
amendment so it should not be included.

 

Chuck

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG 

 

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