Re: [council] RE: Draft motion on GNSO Review Working Party Recommendations

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for the heads-up Wolf-Ulrich. I apologize for my part on any confusion I 
caused. I had to step out before the discussion on the motions yesterday.

I would support holding off on this motion to have a discussion on this topic. 
There’s a lot in there that Councillors need to understand before we proceed to 
a vote. I will follow your lead on this. If the motion is deferred, I wouldn’t 
mind remaining as a seconder to your motion. If you would like to withdraw the 
motion altogether, that’s also fine.

I do hope the Council eventually adopts (or endorses since the WP isn’t 
actually a chartered group) the feedback of the GNSO Working Party on 
Westlake’s recommendations.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Mar 6, 2016, at 1:08 AM, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Thanks Amr,
> at the meeting it turned out that there maybe more time needed on council to 
> discuss the review itself before voting on the motion. In this case U would 
> withdraw the motion. But let's discuss this after Larissa's presentation 
> tomorrow afternoon.
> 
> Regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> Sent from my personal phone
> 
>> Am 06.03.2016 um 00:57 schrieb Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> For some reason, Wulf-Ulrich’s email 
>> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18184.html) didn’t 
>> make it to my inbox, but I noticed that there is no second to the motion he 
>> has proposed. I would be happy to second this motion.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr