I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs. My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet. Stéphane Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
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
<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>