If my understanding is correct, Wolf has since withdrawn this proposed amendment so it should not be included.

Chuck

From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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