|
I second Tim's suggestion, especially as it's unlikely that many of us will have had a chance to discuss this with the Board and staff prior to Seoul, and it's a topic that's pretty critical to most of our constituents.
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 9/29/2009 1:56 PM >>> > Board-GNSO-Staff Diner topic What about the new agreement/arrangement that is rumored to follow the expiration of the JPA? Seems we should have more details on that by Seoul, and likely a lot of questions. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Topic for next Agenda was Re: [] Incoming Council members From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, September 29, 2009 12:28 pm To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi, In terms of that agenda, I currently see two dominant issues: 1. Discussion of the contents of the yet to be approved letter form the Board to the GNSO asking for the GNSO to do some work related to the DAG and the IRT recommendations. 2. Any issues that still need to be dealt with in terms of completing the transition/restructuring. E.g. the assignment of NCAs to houses if that has not been completed yet (completion date is listed as 7 Oct) or any other issue that is pending. The agenda will come out this Thursday. If anyone on the council has any issues they think also need to be covered, please let me know. Also in terms of the Board-GNSO-Staff Diner topic - I am thinking that the contents of the yet to be seen letter might be just the thing. Does this sound reasonable? Any other suggestions? I am also thinking that this letter should be on the Wednesday Public Meeting agenda. thanks a. On 29 Sep 2009, at 12:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > I am anticipating that our agenda may be shorter than usual so I > think that it would be good if we have an agenda item at the > beginning to welcome the new Councilors and an agenda item at the > end allowing them to ask questions if they have any and if time > permits. Other than that it is probably best that the new > Councilors are there as observers unless there is a discussion topic > that specifically involves them. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:43 AM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: Re: [council] Incoming Council members was Re: [] >> NCA input to House placement >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Sorry if i was unclear. i was suggesting that they be there >> as observers. >> But I was not explicit in the part I wrote for that message, >> only in the part I included from a previous message. >> >> BTW, 'as observers' normally means, in a GNSO context, that >> they can participate just not vote or make motions. >> >> a. >> >> On 29 Sep 2009, at 11:35, Adrian Kinderis wrote: >> >>> I object to them joining as Councillors. >>> >>> They should be there as observers only. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 30/09/2009, at 1:14, "StÃphane Van Gelder" >>> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxx >>> m> wrote: >>> >>>> Seems fine to me. >>>> >>>> StÃphane >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 29/09/09 15:26,  Avri Doria  <avri@xxxxxxx> a Ãcrit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Sep 2009, at 08:32, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I should mention that Andrey has been added to this list (as all >>>>>> newly appointed/elected council members will be), and I welcome >>>>>> him. Of course the incoming council members are >> observers on the >>>>>> list until 28 October. In keep with our normal >> processes, I invite >>>>>> the new council members to participate on the list as >> fully as they >>>>>> feel ready to with voting and the making of motions >> being the only >>>>>> exceptions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to suggest that incoming council members also be >>>>> invited to join the next Council call on on 8 October. >>>>> >>>>> Since this is not part of the normal process, I want to >> confirm that >>>>> there are no objections. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>>> a. >>>>> >> >> >> > |