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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I have sent a question to the Legal Counsel asking if there was any  
by-law based reason why this
would not be allowed.

thanks

a.

On 2 sep 2007, at 22.36, Robin Gross wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>