<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Dear All,
The motion has been modified accordingly with the friendly amendment from
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Volker Greimann has been noted as seconding the amended
motion.
https://community.icann.org/x/EwSOAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: mardi 21 juin 2016 16:30
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison
to the GAC
Thanks all for weighing in.
There currently isn¹t a second to the motion, so I take these changes as
friendly and ask that Marika & team modify the WHEREAS 2 language accordingly
(the most recent version submitted by Wolf-Ulrich, below).
J.
On 6/21/16, 6:50 , "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what
>happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the
>sole applicant. Thanks!
>
>Best,
>Paul
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben
>><wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved.
>>However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in
>>some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether
>>this could be acceptable:
>>
>> 2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to
>>extend the selection process.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM
>> To: James M. Bladel
>> Cc: GNSO Council List
>> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current
>>GNSO Liaison to the GAC
>>
>>
>> Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say
>>"whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for
>>the role was less robust than hoped for."
>>
>> Best,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Paul -
>>>
>>> You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The
>>>intention was to leave the door open for the lone application
>>>received to be resubmitted.
>>>
>>> I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> J.
>>> ____________
>>> James Bladel
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>> I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What
>>>>element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all
>>>>that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the
>>>>one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in
>>>>the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill.
>>>> This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't
>>>>have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what
>>>>is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM
>>>> To: GNSO Council List
>>>> Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO
>>>>Liaison to the GAC
>>>>
>>>> Councilors -
>>
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|