Re: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC
This sounds very sensible to me. David On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:51 pm, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: All, This needs to be tidied up . The motions appear identical but mine actually has a couple of minor changes to the wording. Therefore, I propose the following: 1. That my wording is a friendly amendment to David’s motion (hopefully acceptable to David & Amr) 2. I withdraw my motion and we remove the confusion of the two (near) identical motions. Thanks, Jonathan From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 25 August 2014 23:43 To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Cake; Marika Konings; Glen de Saint Gery Subject: Re: [council] Motion - Appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC Importance: High Hi, It seems we have two identical motions regarding appointment of GNSO liaison to the GAC (one by David and one by Jonathan). I am happy to second either one or both, if a seconding is still necessary. :) Thanks. Amr On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: All, Please see attached for a motion for consideration at the forthcoming Council meeting on 4thSeptember 2014. The motion relates to the Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee The motion will need to be seconded. Thank-you, Jonathan <Motion - Appointment of GNSO Liaison to the GAC (25 August 2014).docx> Attachment:
signature.asc
|