[council] Proposed Motion concerning Council communication to ICANN BoD regarding lack of Whois consensus

[Ross Rader]

Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> While we are on the subject of procedures for Council...
> 
> a. It is bizarre to lay down now motions that reference a hypothetical outcome of a future
> GNSO vote.
> Please Avri check with legal services on the good sense and by-law compatibility of this.

Save yourself the trouble Avri, the bylaw cover neither the "bizarre" 
nor "good sense". C'mon Philip, surely you can do better.

The *only* reason this motion has been tabled at this time is to provide 
my fellow councillors with the opportunity to review a motion before I 
table it at a council meeting. This is the process that we all agreed to 
and I'm simply following it.

> 
> b. A motion that proposes an outcome to a PDP that is 100% unconnected with the PDP terms of
> reference and any discussion (to wit Ross's motion) must be out of order.
> At best it relates by title only to the same issue.
> Avri, please check this out with legal services also.
> 

The motion does not propose any outcome to the PDP. It is a proposal 
regarding how we will react to a possible outcome and make a 
communication to the board describing that possible outcome.

> A Councillor may propose any nonsense they want at any time: Council is not obliged to
> indulge it.
> As a long standing member, I would prefer to see us act with common sense, propriety and
> rationality.

Why start now Philip? Again with your rhetoric. If you are looking to 
act with common sense, you might want to start by rethinking these sorts 
of statements. Objecting to a motion on emotional terms? Really.

-ross