[council] GNSO review - principles for discussion

[Robin Gross]

The suggestion that we can selectively disregard the Bylaws and decide 
amongst ourselves how much each of our votes should be weighted came as 
quite a surprise to me too.  I need to be convinced (with an 
authoritative text such as Bylaws) that we have this authority to pick 
and choose when weighted voting applies.    

Also, I do not agree that this issue is NOT a policy decision and 
therefore weighted voting should not apply (assuming we have the 
authority to disregard weighted voting on "non-policy" issues).  I think 
we all know that "architecture is policy" so I don't see how the make-up 
of the GNSO policy council is NOT a policy decision.

Robin


Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While I certainly agree in principle in the 'one council member - one  
> vote' principle, I am curious how it fits in with the rules the GNSO  
> council operates under.  Do the rules actually bifurcate between  
> policy votes and other votes?  I did not think so, but perhaps I am  
> missing a critical passage or bit of hermeneutics.
>
> a.
>
> On 10 nov 2006, at 07.48, Greg Ruth wrote:
>
>> Philip,
>>      I agree whole-heartedly!
>> Greg
>>
>> --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard at aim.be> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Council members,
>>>
>>> I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to
>>> further discussion on
>>> matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the
>>> GNSO.
>>> Allow me to propose some.
>>>
>>> DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION
>>>
>>> Council should have discussion on selected topics first.
>>> Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies
>>> and other parties.
>>> Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion.
>>> Then Council may consider a resolution.
>>>
>>> VOTING
>>>
>>> When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting
>>> basis will be one person,
>>> one vote.
>>> (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double
>>> voting for certain
>>> constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be
>>> especially ironic
>>> considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.)
>>>
>>> QUORUM
>>>
>>> A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded
>>> and then supported by a
>>> majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda.
>>> (This should help us to discuss the important things first).
>>>
>>> Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles
>>> to help us in our work?
>>>
>>> Philip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________ 
>> ______________
>> Want to start your own business?
>> Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
>>
>