ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Action item for the SCI

  • To: "'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx'" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Action item for the SCI
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:02:32 -0500
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac3fzjgBQOen+/dSSN+r4P7xKXNwTwAEc3iB
  • Thread-topic: [council] Action item for the SCI

Wolf and Joy,

I actually do not like the way this is positioned.  We should not be asking the 
question of whether what we did at the meeting on the 20th was in line with the 
Operating Procedures, but rather should consider the notion separate and apart 
from the substance of the IOC motion.  The question should simply be "should 
there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared 
before the Council?  If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any 

I think it is that simple.

I am not currently on the SCI, but I would like to be involved in this question 
so I would ask if I can now be included on that mailing list.


Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Sent from iPad.  Please excuse any typos.

 -----Original Message-----
From:   KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Friday, December 21, 2012 05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        [council] Action item for the SCI

Following the debate on resubmitting a defeated motion to the council, Joy and 
I drafted the council's request for the SCI (see attached). I've already 
introduced the item to the SCI, and it has been taken to the SCI's agenda.
Best regards

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