Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some other thoughts:

First ³Resolved² clause:  Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG?  I
thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on
the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I
don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG
decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair
for this short-term effort.

Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served
in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the
previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."


Second ³Resolved² Clause:  Whatever we end up calling this group, it
should flow through the subsequent clauses.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²

Third ³Resolved² Clause:  45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the
new group to report back if it needs more time?
Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with
its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification
within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to
the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for
completion of its work.²


Thanks‹


J.







On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>All,
>I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London
>meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the
>latest developments.
>
>Kind regards,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>