<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>That would be fine Avri.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Avri Doria [<A HREF="mailto:avri@acm.org">mailto:avri@acm.org</A>]<BR>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 04:02 PM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: Council GNSO<BR>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi Chuck,<BR>
<BR>
If the council is ready to vote on your motion, then i think it would <BR>
be appropriate to amend it to include the date for voting on the PDP, <BR>
i.e. the pro-forma motion one I am offering can be folded into yours <BR>
as a friendly amendment if you accept it.<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand if the council is not ready to vote on yours or if <BR>
it fails in a vote, then my pro-forma motion can stand as it is. I.e. <BR>
my motion can be contingent on yours.<BR>
<BR>
Would that be ok?<BR>
<BR>
a.<BR>
<BR>
On 12 Dec 2008, at 17:41, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Thanks Avri. If my alternative motion passes, I would suggest what I<BR>
> hope would be a friendly amendment that would change 8 January 2009 to<BR>
> 29 January 2009. That would give Staff until 15 January to provide <BR>
> the<BR>
> clarification that my motion seeks.<BR>
><BR>
> I am comfortable waiting until we see whether my motion is seconded <BR>
> and<BR>
> passes.<BR>
><BR>
> Chuck<BR>
><BR>
>> -----Original Message-----<BR>
>> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
>> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<BR>
>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:43 AM<BR>
>> To: Council GNSO<BR>
>> Subject: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on<BR>
>> Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> Hi,<BR>
>><BR>
>> It was mentioned that in keeping with our current practice<BR>
>> of being explicit with timings as much as possible, we<BR>
>> should be more specific about when we will take the required<BR>
>> PDP votes after receiving an Issues report. This motion is<BR>
>> intended to fill that gap.<BR>
>><BR>
>> thanks<BR>
>><BR>
>> a.<BR>
>><BR>
>> ----<BR>
>><BR>
>> Moved by: Avri Doria<BR>
>> Seconded:<BR>
>><BR>
>> Whereas:<BR>
>><BR>
>> An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has<BR>
>> been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Resolve:<BR>
>><BR>
>> The GNSO Council members will consult with their<BR>
>> constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other<BR>
>> possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January 2009.<BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>