[council] GNSO review - principles for discussion

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Philip,

>From a Council point of view, I think we should operate as per our
current Council procedures regardless of the topic.   Currently any
member of Council may propose a motion and if it is seconded - it may be
discussed, provided it is within the mission of ICANN and on the topic
of gTLDs.   As chair I follow the bylaws, the old namescouncil rules of
procedure (which have never been updated since the GNSO was formed), and
finally generally accepted meeting rules for proposing motions etc.

I certainly support the advice that Council members first discuss a
topic via this mailing list before proposing a motion be placed on an
agenda for the Council meeting.

However there is nothing stopping the GNSO forming its own "working
group" to look at refining the GNSO in response to the two reviews, and
the rules for this working group could be different (e.g one vote per
member etc).

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, 10 November 2006 8:42 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] GNSO review - principles for discussion
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>