ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] Motion on the Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review

  • To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion on the Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:07:46 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: t-online.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;t-online.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=godaddy.com;
  • Cc: GNSO council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=WUOt0Qh5UpQ3LUYX59lIseRsdpPXwTdAgRXDugXBT5E=; b=Q2Fz/XgqrWze7/Ia0jJyNbL9Bu7qTDN3xNlfhz8pHWIXMlES7WT7aotTcjLpd2ud55DuO0ivRNyg9TLvc86EMryqaBP2sB0SKqaBRyZ5YZpTLfAXXUUDhxjwoASJx0BHMAU4NhwggbxBrc5MnopH75rS0HDFyS4IlqHQsggjfPo=
  • In-reply-to: <579A300307F0426B900C13E49EAE143E@WUKPC>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <579A300307F0426B900C13E49EAE143E@WUKPC>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHReY9uFe2fcbWvKUGGTBagz2uIb59Q0ysv
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion on the Proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review
Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich. We will note this motion withdrawal on our Wednesday 
agenda, as well as your timeline and path forward.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel

On Mar 8, 2016, at 23:08, WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Dear council colleagues,

after the GNSO preparatory discussion on the GNSO review over the last weekend 
in Marrakech I intend to withdraw the respective motion at the council meeting 
on Wednesday. This is attached to the expectation that you'll immediately start 
the discussion about the approach suggested by the Review Working Party within 
your community. On the basis of the input given by the SGs/Cs the council 
should then develop a common position on the proposal that the motion can be 
resubmitted, preferably to the next council meeting on 14 April.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


From: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 7:04 PM
To: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; Marika 
Konings<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Motion on GNSO review

Wolf-Ulrich, that sounds perfect - assuming you intend to withdraw AT the 
meeting rather than BEFORE.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 18:51
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Motion on GNSO review

Ladies,

is there anything to be put forward formally at the council meeting rather than 
just saying: "I withdraw"? Adding that the discussion on SG/C-level should 
start immediately and it is expected that a common position can be achieved to 
submit a motion to the next council meeting

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>