<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF
- To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:23:30 -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 5.3.05
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Hard to imagine that it isn't clear. An "ICANN mailing
list for the GNSO leadership" versus "lunch"? A "meeting of the Chairs of the
SO/ACs called by the CEO of ICANN" versus a "hat"? I really don't think it's
all that hard.<BR></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: Re:
[council] Chairs' List and Chairs' Meeting in SF<BR>From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<<a
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date:
Thu, January 20, 2011 1:04 pm<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" <<a
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Cc: "GNSO Council "
<<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR>Tim,
where do you draw the line between what's part of the normal day-to-day
management of the Council and what needs to be voted on through a
motion?<BR><BR>I do not know how to classify "what we have for lunch" on the
one hand and "what mailing list we should be creating" on the
other?<BR><BR>Stéphane<BR><BR>Le 20 janv. 2011 à 19:14, Tim Ruiz a écrit
:<BR><BR>> <BR>> I agree in part with Rosemary and Bill, that there was
not enough time<BR>> between decisions on these issues for everyone to voice
their opinion,<BR>> or even give it much thought. But I think the real
problem is because<BR>> the appropriate way for the Council to act is
through resolution. The<BR>> straw polling of the Council for these kinds of
things just does not<BR>> work.<BR>> <BR>> A straw poll on what two
main dishes we want for a lunch, or what kind<BR>> of hat to present a
departing Councilor is fine. But otherwise, I<BR>> believe we should act
through resolution only. That will alleviate any<BR>> confusion as to
whether this or that actually had the support of the<BR>> Council, and it
makes sure that all Councilors have the opportunity to<BR>> be fully
informed and appropriately consider the decision.<BR>> <BR>> Regarding
the two recent issues, I believe there is still time for such<BR>>
appropriate action. Regardless of how I feel about these issues, I do<BR>>
believe the will of the majority of the Council should be the deciding<BR>>
factor. Acting through resolution will ensure that.<BR>> <BR>> When time
does not allow for acting through resolution, I don't think<BR>> there is
any one right way to deal with it except that if pursued there<BR>> should
be no representation that it was a Council action or the<BR>> Council's will
in any way. For example, Stephane doesn't need our<BR>> permission to arrive
two days early to SF and chat with other attendees<BR>> even if they happen
to be Chairs of other SO/ACs, but if he does he<BR>> cannot do so "AS" Chair
of the Council or in any way imply that his<BR>> actions or statements
represent the Council. It would concern me that<BR>> ICANN would likely end
up paying for two additional nights. If it were<BR>> me, I would not let
that happen. I guess that is for Stephane to decide.<BR>> <BR>> In
regards to the list, there is no reason that it cannot wait for<BR>>
appropriate resolution and action of the Council.<BR>> <BR>> Tim<BR>>
<BR>> <BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|