[bc-gnso] Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes
lizawilliams at mac.com
Wed Jul 15 05:43:53 UTC 2009
How is it possible that all of our BC Councillors (and many others)
were absent for this important vote and that this motion is able to go
forward? Of course I understand weighted voting but this doesn't seem
What are the implication of this?
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877757
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Date: 15 July 2009 05:27:13 BST
> To: secretary at icann.org, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz
> >, Roberto Gaetano <roberto at icann.org>, gnso-council-draft at icann.org
> Cc: gnso-restruc-dt at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council
> vote on Recommended By Laws changes
> To the Board;
> This constitutes formal notification to the Board, to the Structural
> Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area,
> on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support
> of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board.
> Avri Doria
> Chair, GNSO Council
> By-Law Changes Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck
> On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan
> to restructuring of the GNSO; and
> On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of
> proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and
> Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy
> Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole
> to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee
> was open to council members as well as substitutes from the
> constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and
> On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board
> Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO
> Committee of the Whole; and
> On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend
> edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole.
> The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws
> related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean-30jun09-en.pdf
> The Motion passed.
> 12 Votes in favour:
> Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi
> Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries
> constituency) (two votes each)
> Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote
> 3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency), Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency).
> 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency).
> Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid
> Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker
> (Intellectual Property Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg
> Ruth (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency),
> Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Terry Davis
> (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar
> Kristina Rosette: Reason for abstention:
> It is inappropriate for there to be a vote on the by-laws until we
> have a resolution of the allocation of Board seats 13 and 14 as well
> as the absence of language pertaining to the temporary transitional
> allocation of the six seats in the NCSG.
> Bill Drake: Reason for abstention:
> Reason for abstention:
> I abstain because the document is not done and we are waiting for
> clarification of some closely linked issues that will affect our
> participation in the new GNSO
> Carlos Souza: Reason for abstaining:
> I understand that the wording regarding the NCSG seats have been
> changed and we do not have the blank space at the end of the clause
> as it was presented in Sydney. However, there are some issues that
> require further input and the document as today is still incomplete
> on that regard.
> Posted by:
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> Additional notes:
> I. The vote was originally scheduled for 24 June 2009, but held over
> at the request of several constituencies. It has been GNSO Council
> practice to postpone a vote for one (1) meeting when a constituency
> asks for more time for considering the motion within the constituency.
> II. The meeting for the vote was originally scheduled for 2 July
> 2009, but was postposed until 9 July 2009 at a council meeting on 25
> June 2009. There were no recorded objections to the scheduling of
> the meeting for that date.
> III. The decision described above, was made according to the ByLaws
> currently in effect:
> X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of
> votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a
> quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote
> of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there
> is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise
> provided herein.
> (See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes
> that GNSO Council members may cast.)
> IV. The absentee ballot rule was not put in to effect due to
> consultation with Legal Counsel that indicated that this was
> neither a Policy Process vote nor an Election, and those are the
> only two occasions where the absentee ballot is approved.
> V. The Commercial and Business Users Constituency, endorsed by the
> Intellectual Property Constituency and the Internet Service and
> Connectivity Providers Constituency, formally requested that the
> following information be included in the formal notification of the
>> 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour.
>> 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso