RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Note a correction in my arithmetic: 8 of 15 members present is still greater 
than 50%.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it 
is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and 
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, 
distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the 
original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck 
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: 'Mawaki Chango'; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 
> recording 24 May 2007
> 
> Note that Annex A of the Bylaws, Section 1.a says, "Council 
> Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote 
> of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the 
> Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate 
> the PDP is made."  I personally think the wording here is a 
> little misleading when taken in context with later wording in 
> 3.b that says, "Issue Raised by Other than by the Board. If a 
> policy issue is presented to the Council for consideration 
> via an Issue Report, then the Council shall meet within 
> fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of such Report to 
> vote on whether to initiate the PDP. . ."   It seems to me 
> that better wording for 1.a would be "Council Initiation. The 
> GNSO Council may REQUEST AN ISSUES REPORT by a vote of at 
> least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council 
> present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
> 
> Regardless of the wording of 1.a, note that 25% of "the 
> members of the Council present at any meeting" is an even 
> easier threshhold.  Using your count of members present, 
> eight members supporting the motion out of 14 members present 
> represents over 50% of members present.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
>  
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or 
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information 
> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
> under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or 
> disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> message in error, please notify sender immediately and 
> destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:36 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
> > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 
> > May 2007
> > 
> > Apparently, you mean 25% of the whole council, not of those voting. 
> > Subject to confirmation, there were still more than 25% on the call 
> > who did not vote YES (6 No and 1 Abstention.)
> > 
> > My point is, even if the percentage count is against the 
> size of the 
> > whole council, you may still have 25% or more voting for 
> one position, 
> > and similarly 25% or more voting in the other direction. 
> How does one 
> > deal with that if the only requirement is to reach 25% for 
> a decision 
> > to be made? Is there any consideration about the 
> significance of count 
> > difference? For example if 8 voted YES and 9 voted NO: both 
> are beyond 
> > 25% and the difference is one vote - would NO simply be the outcome?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mawaki
> > 
> > 
> > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Note Mawaki that even if your count is correct, the motion
> > would still
> > > pass because only 25% is needed, which I believe would be 7
> > (25% of 27
> > > = 6.75).
> > > 
> > > Chuck Gomes
> > >  
> > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> > entity to
> > > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> > privileged,
> > > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any 
> > > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> > prohibited. 
> > > If you have received this message in error, please notify sender 
> > > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki
> > > Chango
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> > > > To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Council GNSO'
> > > > Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3
> > recording 24
> > > > May 2007
> > > > 
> > > > Council,
> > > > 
> > > > My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today
> > > 
> > > > teleconf as I had expected.
> > > > 
> > > > I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see
> > > below),
> > > > my count of the votes does not match the one you announced
> > > on
> > > > the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES 
> > > > (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony,
> > > and Greg),
> > > > 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and
> > > 1
> > > > Abstention (Thomas).
> > > > 
> > > > So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after 
> > > > double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of
> > > 
> > > > an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Mawaki
> > > > 
> > > > Item 5:  Motion to request issues report on protecting
> > IGO names and
> > > > abbreviations
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation
> > put forward
> > > > by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with
> > > > WIPO-2 to
> > > > protect International Intergovernmental Organizations 
> (IGO) names 
> > > > and abbreviations as domain names.
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect IGO
> > > 
> > > > names and abbreviations are requested in the GAC
> > principles for New
> > > > gTLDs.
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance
> > > 
> > > > agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and 
> > > > abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris
> > Convention
> > > > (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
> > > > 
> > > > The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an
> > issues report on
> > > > the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes 
> > > > relating to IGO names and abbreviations as
> > > 
> > > > domain names.
> > > > 
> > > > The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise 
> with WIPO to 
> > > > utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
> > > > 
> > > > Bruce,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> > > > <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org
> > > > > [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org;
> > > council[at]gnso.icann.org]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council
> > > > teleconference, held
> > > > > on 24 May 2007 at:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3
> > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
> > > > > 
> > > > > Happy listening!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Glen de Saint Géry
> > > > > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> > > > > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> > > > > http://gnso.icann.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >