Re: [council] GNSO review - principles for discussion

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxx> 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