AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

Thu Sep 30 13:32:38 UTC 2010

I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.

My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet.

Stéphane

Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW at telekom.de> a écrit :

> I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as friendly.
> 
> Best regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37
> An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG 
> 
> I  am accepting one of Adrian’s suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file.  Other suggested amendments are welcome.  Note also that a second is needed.
> 
> Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>>
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Motion re. VI WG
> 
> 
>  << File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >>
> 
> In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second.  Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October.
> 
> I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> <Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100930/1c0d9954/attachment.html>