RE: [council] motion to waive rules

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

We can add this issue to our discussion about rules, etc. in the NC, per my
suggested motion. 

I personally am even more convinced that we should maintain the ratification
AND discussion in a personal contact and given the few votes of this nature
we need to take, I don't believe that an occasional extra conf. call is a
big burden... we can try as much as possible to limit votes to the regular
calls. Isn't that the usual practice on our part?

MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:06 PM
To: council@dnso.org; DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org;
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
Cc: touton@icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] motion to waive rules


I (sort of) agree with Bruce, but would point out that
the problem is in the ICANN by-laws, not in our own
DNSO rules, so any change involves the ICANN Board,
not us.

>>> Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> 02/07/02 05:23PM >>>
Hello All,

> That is fine with me, but I think in the future that the NC 
> should look at
> their rules and allow for these sort of email votes without 
> necessarily
> having to have NC calls (except perhaps in the case of actual 
> elections)