[registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.

[elliot noss]

here is my acceptance (from safari and lucky to find some stray packets 
:-)). I accept this nomination and would be proud to serve on nomcom.

As for conflict of interest, I am not aware of an potential conflicts of 
interest that would interfere with my election to the nominating 
committee. Should my situation or interests change, I will immediately 
disclose as much for review by the constituency.

I apologize for not including a longer statement as to my 
qualifications, but right now I am blowing ants off of my keyboard 
(hoping they don't sneak in). Thanks all.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Regards

Bhavin Turakhia wrote:
> I believe elliotts nomination should be accepted too. And this brings me to
> one more point. Maybe the bylaw revision committee can incorporate the
> ability to provide such flexibility by a decision from the ex-com
> 
> - bhavin
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org 
>>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
>>Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:40 AM
>>To: Robert F. Connelly
>>Cc: Registrars Constituency; RC Voting Members
>>Subject: Re: [registrars] Recapitulations of nominations, 
>>BEAST, Nomcom, GNSO Representative.
>>
>>Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nomcom Representative:
>>>
>>>Nominations were opened on 1 December 2004. 
>>>
>>>Tom Barrett was nominated on 13 December 2004, he accepted and was 
>>>seconded.  He has submitted his conflict of interest statement.
>>>
>>>Elliot Noss was nominated and seconded on 20 December 2004. 
>>
>> We have 
>>
>>>not received his acceptance and conflict of interest statement.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>The Rules are confusing because they refer to a nomination as a 
>>>"motion".  The text had been cut and pasted from the section on 
>>>Motions.  Note the reference in red,  *call for motion and call for 
>>>discussion*, which make little sense for a nomination.  However, it 
>>>would appear that the drafters intended to have nominations 
>>
>>held open 
>>
>>>for 14 days.  That said, Elliot's nomination came after the 
>>
>>closing.  
>>
>>>I propose that we either elect Tom Barrett by acclamation 
>>
>>or that I post a ballot with only one candidate.
>>
>>>I await your comments.
>>>
>>
>>I'd like to formally request a "bend" of the rules to allow 
>>Elliot's nomination. In addition to a heavy travel schedule 
>>this month, I've been laid up with a minor, but confining, 
>>injury. As a result, I haven't been in the office since 
>>November :) Compounding this is the fact that Elliot is still 
>>in Africa and hasn't had great connectivity over the past week. 
>>Although I know he has every intention of accepting his 
>>nomination and I'd do it on his behalf if I could, I can't 
>>guarantee when he will do so.
>>
>>I know this sounds like a hard luck story, but these are the 
>>facts :). 
>>Special consideration in this instance would be appreciated, 
>>but I also understand this might not be possible.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for your consideration,
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                       -rwr
>>
>>
>>
>>Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
>>Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: 
>>http://www.byte.org
>>
>>
>>
> 
>