[council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es

[Robin Gross]

I agree that we can and should slightly expedite the motion so that 
progress can be made in Los Angeles.

Robin

Adrian Kinderis wrote:

>All,
>
>It seems to me to be valid to have this issue and motion expedited to
>ensure that it is reviewed and decided upon by those that have followed
>the process and that is concluded at the LA meeting.
>
>Regards,
>
>Adrian Kinderis
>Managing Director
>AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
>Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
>Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
>Email: adrian at ausregistry.com
>Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com
>
>The information contained in this communication is intended for the
>named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
>legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
>intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
>in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
>please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
>Sent: Friday, 31 August 2007 6:58 PM
>To: Ross Rader
>Cc: 'Council GNSO'
>Subject: Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force -
>with Whereas'es
>
>I second the motion to expedite the process by three days. This seems
>absoletely reasonable to me since it will enable the council to finish
>its work on this PDP at the LA meeting.
>
>Best,
>
>tom
>
>Am 31.08.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
>  
>
>>Philip Sheppard wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I formally oppose the suggestion to shorten the public comment period
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>timetable proposed by
>>>the Council chair.
>>>
>>>Unseemly haste on this most high profile of issues is unwise.
>>>      
>>>
>>I believe that the proper process is to request a second on the 
>>amendment and then put it to a vote. If the amendment is viewed as 
>>unfriendly, it would be voted on separately, IIRC.
>>
>>If you don't agree with the amendment, then vote against it. If it 
>>becomes part of the motion and you are still uncomfortable with it,
>>    
>>
>then 
>  
>
>>vote against the whole package or make a counter-motion.
>>
>>Also, I'd note that tightening up the schedule by three business days
>>    
>>
>is 
>  
>
>>hardly "unseemly haste", although I do applaud the breadth of your 
>>rhetorical skills.
>>
>>-- 
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ross Rader
>>Director, Retail Services
>>Tucows Inc.
>>
>>http://www.domaindirect.com
>>t. 416.538.5492
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Gruss,
>
>tom
>
>(__)        
>(OO)_____  
>(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
>  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>  w w w  w  
>
>
>  
>