[council] RE: Question re: Second SOI/DOI Motion

Adrian Kinderis adrian at ausregistry.com.au
Tue Nov 9 11:05:06 UTC 2010

I second SVG's motion.

We don't need 'em.

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:10 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] FW: Question re: Second SOI/DOI Motion

In our last Council meeting, there was discussion of two different possible motions regarding the requirement for Disclosures of Interests in th GNSO Operating Procedures.  Stéphane already made a motion to delete the requirement.  The other alternative discussed was to modify the procedures as proposed by the GCOT; a motion to that effect is attached.  If anyone wants to make this alternative motion, please do so by Wednesday, 9 November.


From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Liz Gasster; Robert Hoggarth; Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: Question re: Second SOI/DOI Motion


I think that there were two possible motions concerning the SOI/DOI procedures arising from the last GNSO Council meeting.  One was that which Stephane requested, which was the version of the SOI/DOI procedures provided by the Work Team but without the DOI procedure.  I am not sure, but I thought you also asked for a motion on the version provided by the Work Team in which the DOI procedures were not deleted.  If so, I have prepared for your consideration a motion along those lines and the accompanying revised procedures.  The motion is the same as the one I provided to Stephane except for the fact that the DOI procedures are not deleted.  Let me know if this is useful to you and, if so, whether you would like me to make any changes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101109/982d94c2/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list