Re: [council] RE: [council] RE: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)

[Stephvg2]

Hi Chuck,

Is there a Time limit for people who abstained to respond with a  
reason why they did so?

Thanks,

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 13 juil. 2009 à 15:16, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> a  
écrit :

> Nothing has been communicated to the Board regarding the vote.  As  
> Avri communicated in our call last week, each person who abstained  
> was to be given an opportunity to confirm that their reason for  
> abstaining was recorded accurately.  Glen sent a draft of the action  
> on the motion with proposed abstention language to the applicable  
> Councilors and we are still waiting for responses.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: 'William Drake'
> Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
> Subject: [council] RE: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on  
> by-laws (from Stéphane)
>
> Well, if that’s the case and the Board know everything anyway, then  
> why bother to have a vote at all???
>
> But as there was a vote, I would appreciate knowing what if anything  
> has happened since.
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: 13 July 2009 13:22
> To: Tony Holmes
> Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws  
> (from Stéphane)
>
> Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a  
> charter for a drafting team?  We could be ready to report the vote  
> in August...
>
> After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications,  
> is there really any chance that the board does not know where the  
> constituencies stand on the bylaws?  Why spend time negotiating how  
> to package and spoon feed them things they already know?  Why not  
> just report the vote per usual and move on?
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote:
>
>
> Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the  
> Board?
>
> Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have  
> you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet?
>
> Tony
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2 at gmail.com>
> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00
> To: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
>
> I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for  
> maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my  
> message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate,  
> I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the  
> Board.
>
> I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary  
> email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward  
> this message to the Council list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.c 
> h> a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>> Hi
>
>>
>
>> Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's  
>> preference.  However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that  
>> differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect  
>> board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent  
>> spinning.  Tim's approach would be preferable in that context.
>
>>
>
>> Bill
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Would it be okay to report the vote something like this:
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> 13 Votes in favor:
>
>>
>>> Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes
>
>>
>>> Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes
>
>>
>>> Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote
>
>>
>>> etc.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> 1 Vote against:
>
>>
>>> Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Abstained:
>
>>
>>> Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement
>
>>
>>> William Drake (NCUC) Statement
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Not present:
>
>>
>>> Philip Sheppard (CBUC)
>
>>
>>> Anthony Harris (ISPC)
>
>>
>>> etc.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Tim
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
>
>>
>>> From: "Anthony Harris" <harris at cabase.org.ar>
>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am
>
>>
>>> To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard at aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'"
>
>>
>>> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Avri,
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as  we
>
>>
>>> have known it, you may see your way to
>
>>
>>> accomodating this rather simple request    from
>
>>
>>> three of the existing constituencies.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> I beleive that all of us are trying to get the
>
>>
>>> restructuring process "right", and certain
>
>>
>>> issues are important to some rather than to
>
>>
>>> others. I think the Board deserves to be
>
>>
>>> aware of this.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Thank you.
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> Tony Harris
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>
>>
>>> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
>
>>
>>> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM
>
>>
>>> Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Avri,
>
>>
>>>
>>>> this request is about transparency and      relevance.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> It is a formal request from the BC.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Philip
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090713/8982fe4f/attachment.html>