I don't think it paralizes us because it only means we have to put the vote off to the next meeting if there will be changes to it in the days before the vote. And actually it would give us an incentive to get our act together sooner. I think the lack of confidence in the GNSO from word-smithing on the fly far outweighs the inconvenience of putting off a vote to the next meeting.

On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Couldn't this paralize us? I agree if there is a material change where
we need to go back to our constituencies.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of
philip.sheppard@aim.be
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:46 AM
To: Robin Gross
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] finalizing motions in advance of voting on them

I fully support this call

I'd to request that whatever motions are up for counsel vote are
finalized at least several days in advance of voting on

them, meaning

no last minute amendments - friendly or not.

I'm concerned about the tendency to amend the motion during

the public

counsel meeting and we end up wasting GNSO public forum

time crafting

language on the fly (and this does not instill confidence in the
counsel from the community).

Besides appearing silly, and more importantly, last minute

amendments

do not give us a chance to discuss the motion that will be voted on
with our constituencies. It is important that we know exactly what
will be voted on in advance so we can get key feedback from our
constituencies.

Thanks,
Robin

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org