[council] IGO/RC motion
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Wed Jul 16 17:14:05 UTC 2014
Some other thoughts:
First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I
thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on
the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I
don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG
decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair
for this short-term effort.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served
in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the
previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it
should flow through the subsequent clauses.
Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the
new group to report back if it needs more time?
Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with
its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification
within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to
the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for
completion of its work.²
Thanks‹
J.
On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
>All,
>I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London
>meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the
>latest developments.
>
>Kind regards,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
More information about the council
mailing list