ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment

  • To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment
  • From: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:10:14 -0000
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acg87HX+nkgW8CkNTwOWEqNvevQLnAAFi7jg
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment

Bob,

I went through the string, and here is what I saw.

Ross - Moved - 12/7  9:51pm
Tom Barrett - Seconded - 12/10  11:32am
Jordi Hinojosa - Seconded - 12/10  11:54am
Peter Stevenson - Seconded - 12/10  4:39pm
Rob Hall - Seconded - 12/11   12:12pm

I believe these emails were all clear seconds or endorsements of the
motion.

I do not believe in reading into a person's "comments" that they endorse
or not based on simply giving an opinion without a clear endorsement or
second.

Rob





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:38 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment


At 05:11 PM 12/11/2007 Tuesday  +0000, Rob Hall wrote:
>I will endorse Ross's motion to get the ball rolling on a formal
>discussion period.

Dear Rob and others:  There has been so much flashing back and forth on
this subject, I don't really know how many endorsements we have at this
point.  Some of the comments *could_be* considered as endorsements. 

Can we please review the bidding on this hand?

Regards, BobC 







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