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@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