Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:59:43 -0300 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Yes, this was what I asked as well.
--c.a.
On 04/27/2011 06:48 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Sure, +1.
>
> Does our input here make a formal difference (is it part of a formal
> process of electoral polling), or is this just a "resolution of support"?
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, April 27, 2011 2:34 pm, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 1+ for Avri.
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Glenn Ricart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 04/27/2011 12:24 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> Let me second that motion!
>>>> In addition to Avri's intrinsic qualifications, there is the need for
>>> better diversity on the Board - and by that I am not just referring to
>>> gender but to ideological and policy diversity as well.
>>>>
>>>> The whole purpose of having distinct stakeholder groups in ICANN's
>>> GNSO is to ensure some kind of balanced representation. So it is
>>> important that the NCSG members hold together and support one of our
>>> own for Board seat 14.
>>>>
>>>> --MM
>>
>
|
|
|