RE: AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim and Jeff on this issue.
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:24 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page

I share Tim's view on this one as well.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:19 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page

I am not convinced it is a good idea to do this as a JWG in this manner.
I thought we were moving toward a GNSO WG, which of course are always
open to all regardless of SO or AC affiliation. I think that is the
quickest way to get Council agreement on this work AND to get it
completed. JWGs are still controversial for many of us and we need to
complete our work on that before initiating any further JWGs or CWGs.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AW: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page
> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, September 15, 2011 5:02 am
> To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
>
> Maybe it helps to use a lower case "joint" (jWG) until the frame for (J)WGs 
> is fixed - or is this even more subtle?
> If not I'd like to propose it as a friendly amendment and second the motion.
>
>
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
> Auftrag von Jonathan Robinson
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2011 16:24
> An: 'Rosemary Sinclair'; 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'GNSO Council List'
> Betreff: RE: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page
>
>
> Hi Rosemary,
>
> The draft charter refers to a (GNSO) WG yet the motion refers to a JWG.
>
> Am I missing an obvious subtlety here?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair
> Sent: 13 September 2011 21:38
> To: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] RE: Motions on the Wiki page
>
>
> Hi all
>
> I'd welcome any comments on the Motion I have proposed...
>
> And a seconder for the Motion!
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosemary
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Glen de Saint Géry [Glen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:17 AM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Motions on the Wiki page
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Please find the motions proposed by:
> - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and seconded by Stéphane van Gelder on the revision of
> the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting
> - Rosemary Sinclair to create a joint working group on consumer choice,
> competition and innovation
> - Zahid Jamil to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working
> Group Recommendations
>
> On the Wiki page:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+September
> +2011
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 6461 (20110913) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com