[council] RE: Motion re. VI WG

[Gomes, Chuck]

If my understanding is correct, Wolf has since withdrawn this proposed
amendment so it should not be included.

 

Chuck

 

From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] 
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG 

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100930/9cfb25f8/attachment.html>