RE: [council] Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks all.

 

We will close at that:

 

23h59 UTC on the day 10 days before the meeting

 

We will now move to public comment.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 30 April 2013 21:01
To: Petter Rindforth
Cc: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'WUKnoben';
'Zahid Jamil'; 'Marika Konings'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures

 

All,

I am also in favour of option 1 and UTC.

 

Thomas

 

 

Am 30.04.2013 um 19:04 schrieb Petter Rindforth
<petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:





Option 1 and UTC

 

seems to be the best solution of two that's not (and likely cannot be)
perfect for everyone.

 

Best,

Petter

-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M
 
Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.fenixlegal.eu
 
 
NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it
or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and
notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

On 30 apr 2013 17:50 "Jonathan Robinson"  <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Right, so we seem to be settling on option 1, a fixed time zone.
Just need to settle on which - UTC or PST and then we can put it out for
standard comment.

I think UTC since so much of our communication still refers to this at 
least. 
Given our meetings are at variable times, it should be approximately fair 
overall. 

Jonathan 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 30 April 2013 15:29 
To: Wendy Seltzer 
Cc: WUKnoben; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Zahid Jamil'; 'Marika Konings'; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [council] Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures 

I agree, Option 2 would complicate things too much. I thought that for 
24:00 where the sender is located might work too, but a tough deadline would

be the clearer option. 

Volker

Hi, 

Since I proposed the reconfiguration to give people the clearest 
notice of when motions were due, I'd recommend option 1. I recognize 
that the amount of time wouldn't be quite the same from month to 
month, but the deadline would be fixed. (I preferred 8 calendar days, 
but 10 is a fine 
compromise.) 

--Wendy 


On 04/29/2013 03:02 PM, WUKnoben wrote:

We vary the meeting times to balance the incommodities as best as 
possible. I think its consequent to vary the motion deadlines with 
the meeting times, too (option #2). 
The deadlines can be published with the meeting calendar in addition 
to every single reminder. 

Best regards 

Wolf-Ulrich 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Jonathan Robinson 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 3:31 PM 
To: 'Zahid Jamil' ; 'Volker Greimann' 
Cc: 'Wendy Seltzer' ; 'Marika Konings' ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [council] Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures 


All, 

I'd like to close this off and move to posting it for public comment. 

My understanding is that we are agreed on 10 calendar days as this is 
global and meets what was originally intended. 

As far as a time-zone is concerned, we have two options: 

1. Choose a fixed time zone in which the 23h59 cut-off occurs. There 
is no universally fair time zone to use for a global audience but UTC 
seems as close to a standard as we have. 
PST provides for a later sunset but is arguably less of a standard 
than UTC. 

OR 

2. Agree that the cut-off is 10 calendar days (exactly) before the 
meeting occurs. This will mean that the time of the cut-off varies 
on a per meeting basis. 
This is probably most fair but could lead to confusion since it 
varies on a per meeting basis. 
Still, as long as the cut-off time is sent as part of the reminder in 
calling for motions, it seems reasonable. 

Any comments or inputs, please provide them ASAP before we move to 
public comment. 

Thanks, 


Jonathan 

-----Original Message----- 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil 
Sent: 23 April 2013 14:47 
To: Volker Greimann 
Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Wendy Seltzer; Marika Konings; 
 <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: Re: [council] Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures 


How about using 23:59 PST as the deadline? 



Best regards, 

Zahid Jamil 
Barrister-at-law 
Jamil & Jamil 
Barristers-at-law 
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe 
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan 
Cell: +923008238230 
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 
Fax: +92 21 35655026 
www.jamilandjamil.com 

Notice / Disclaimer 
This message contains confidential information and its contents are 
being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not 
the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy

this e-mail.

Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above 
may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, 
Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by 
attorney client privilege. 
The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any 
kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or 
storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not 
transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) 
without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is 
prohibited. 

Sent from my iPad 

On 23 Apr 2013, at 16:45, Volker Greimann
<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote: 



While I support this in general, I am not sure we really need such a

policy. The proposed language cuts the time available for bringing 
motions short for our American councillors compared to right now.

Volker 



I support Wendy's language. 



Best regards, 

Zahid Jamil 
Barrister-at-law 
Jamil & Jamil 
Barristers-at-law 
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe 
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan 
Cell: +923008238230 
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 
Fax: +92 21 35655026 
www.jamilandjamil.com 

Notice / Disclaimer 
This message contains confidential information and its contents are 
being

communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the 
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this

e-mail.

Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this 
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above 
may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, 
Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by 
attorney client privilege. 
The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any 
kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or 
storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not 
transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) 
without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is 
prohibited.

Sent from my iPad 

On 23 Apr 2013, at 16:30, "Jonathan Robinson"

 <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

All, 

I am in support of Wendy's wording (with a minor tweak) as follows: 

Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for 
inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 
23:59 UTC on the day, 8 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. 

Any concerns or objections, please raise ASAP otherwise I suggest 
we post for public comment.



-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 

Volker A. Greimann 
- Rechtsabteilung - 

Key-Systems GmbH 
Im Oberen Werk 1 
66386 St. Ingbert 
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / 
www.BrandShelter.com 

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/KeySystems 
www.twitter.com/key_systems 

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin 
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534


Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP 
www.keydrive.lu 

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. 

-------------------------------------------- 

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Best regards, 

Volker A. Greimann 
- legal department - 

Key-Systems GmbH 
Im Oberen Werk 1 
66386 St. Ingbert 
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / 
www.BrandShelter.com 

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems 
www.twitter.com/key_systems 

CEO: Alexander Siffrin 
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP 
www.keydrive.lu 

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it 
is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this

email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an

addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify 
the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.