<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
- To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:18:06 -0700
- Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.2.39
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>I appreciate Ray's opinion, but I think if you
polled all the GCOT members you may find different opinions as to what was
meant. But it is irrelevant. We approved the procedures and I suggest, just as
we did with the proxy and DOI/SOI issues, we follow what we agreed to until we
change it, and that we do as we have always done in these cases and vote to
make an exception. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Going forward, I would like the Council to consider putting a more
reasonable timeframe on this of 14 calendar days. It is frustrating to spend
weeks preparing with our SGs to only have last minute issues crop up that
we have to shoot from the hip on. It is neither transparent nor predictable,
and our SGs should be able to expect more from the body they've elected to
manage these processes. </div>
<div><BR> </div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=replyBlockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana" webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: FW:
[council] Motion deadline per operating procedures<BR>From: "Gomes, Chuck"
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date:
Wed, December 01, 2010 4:33 pm<BR>To: "GNSO Council" <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR><BR>With
Ray Fassett's permission, I am forwarding his opinion as chair of the GCOT
regarding the intent of the GCOT with regard to the 8 day
requirement.<BR><BR>Chuck<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Ray
Fassett [<a href="mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx</a>] <BR>Sent:
Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:16 PM<BR>To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Philip
Sheppard'<BR>Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating
procedures<BR><BR>Chuck, <BR><BR>I admit that I do not recall the GCOT exacting
out that 8 days means 192 hours. I also cannot say with absolute surety that
the GCOT meant "including" the 8th day which could mean less than 192 hours.
Now, here's what I think is fair to say: The GCOT did not take the approach of
exacting out every possible "what-if" scenario from the procedures. Part of
this is because 1) it is an impossible task to do, 2) brings in the law of
diminishing returns (inefficiencies), and 3) was implied there would be real
world experiences and from the lessons learned modify the procedures through
the course of time consistent to the real world experiences. In this example, I
am willing to say that there is a spirit to allow the GNSO Council Chair some
reasonable discretion in managing the affairs of the GNSO.<BR><BR>Hope this
helps,<BR><BR>Ray Fassett<BR>Chair<BR>GCOT<BR><BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: Gomes, Chuck [<a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<BR>> Sent:
Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:19 PM<BR>> To: Ray Fassett; Philip
Sheppard<BR>> Subject: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating
procedures<BR>> <BR>> Did the GCOT and OSC intend that the 8 day advance
requirement for<BR>> motions should literally be 8 x 24 hours = 192
hours?<BR>> <BR>> Chuck<BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: Tim Ruiz [<a
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<BR>> Sent:
Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:12 PM<BR>> To: Gomes, Chuck<BR>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>
Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures<BR>>
<BR>> Interesting how we pick what we are going to adhere to process
wise<BR>> (certain requests to assign proxies a while back for example) and
what<BR>> we don't. I maintain that a day is a day (24 hours) and that is
exactly<BR>> what the GCOT meant. Regarding what we did in the past, it is
just<BR>> that,<BR>> the past (two wrongs don't make a right and all that
nonsense). Popping<BR>> motions in the mix at the 11th hour is becoming the
norm, not the<BR>> exception. If the Council votes to make an exception on
these two<BR>> motions then I guess that's the way it is. But questioning
what a "day"<BR>> means is a rediculous argument. These motions did not meet
the deadline<BR>> and I maintain that any exception requires a vote.<BR>>
<BR>> If the GCOT meant something else then I would like that explained
by<BR>> them and I would propose that we pull back the procedures in whole
to<BR>> have them all reviewed to be sure we don't have any other
convenient<BR>> interpretations pop up unexpectedly.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Tim<BR>> <BR>> -------- Original Message --------<BR>>
Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures<BR>> From:
"Gomes, Chuck" <<a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>> Date:
Wed, December 01, 2010 1:52 pm<BR>> To: "Tim Ruiz" <<a
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>
<BR>> Tim,<BR>> <BR>> My guess is, if we took a survey of Councilors,
many would not<BR>> interpret days so literally as you do and I suspect that
the GCOT<BR>> didn’t mean it that literally either. But I will point out
that Glen<BR>> sent a message reminding Councilors of the 8-day advance
requirement<BR>> and<BR>> noted that motions were due by 30 November.
Glen did that at my<BR>> request<BR>> and as you can tell, I have never
interpreted the requirement as 192<BR>> hours. If it means 192 hours, then I
suspect that we have missed the<BR>> deadline many times in the
past.<BR>> <BR>> Regardless, I still maintain that we should spend our
time focusing on<BR>> the issues not the process, especially when we are
talking about<BR>> something where we clearly had different understandings
regarding the<BR>> deadline.<BR>> <BR>> Chuck<BR>> <BR>> From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
[mailto:owner-<BR>> <a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<BR>> On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM<BR>>
To: <a href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>
Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating
procedures<BR>> clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later
than 8 days<BR>> before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is
scheduled<BR>> to<BR>> begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the
motions submitted<BR>> yesterday<BR>> by Mary and Kristina met the
deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th.<BR>> <BR>> Again, given that ICANN
involves one or more days of travel for many of<BR>> us, and that any 8 day
period also includes at least one weekend, I<BR>> think it is crucial that
motions are submitted as soon as possible and<BR>> the deadline should be
strictly observed.<BR>> <BR>> Tim<BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|