<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
- To: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=uK/omSjW5q399EetgzOZ243hgZOA/VrEAcWm/rBJL2Ddi1YStBAOG6N3cLL9lUP5WBT0mEw+AdnDrlT1DlbdaksLrIotBxrf26n1gxyCDKYu2MWV4P+BYwLlGvfzFWs1tDn91y/qLEG5yzNGyvbaejzosoa6aSQ3vidHdRxAy7Y=;
- In-reply-to: <4655FEF1.9080302@gnso.icann.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Assuredly, Glen, this clarifies:
1. that the wighted vote for certain constituencies (1 rep = 2
votes) still weighs in for voting issue report, so i guess at
this point that this is the case in every voting (or is there
any exception where any council member's vote is equal to any
other one's?)
2. that there's no notion of majority (not even relative
majority) in voting issue report: if 27% of the council members
on the call vote for the IR, and 30% vote against, there will
still be an IR.
Is my understanding correct?
Many thanks to you Glen and Chuck for helping understand this.
Mawaki
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mawaki,
>
> The vote count is:
> in favour:
> Philip Sheppard - 1 vote
> Mike Rodenbaugh - 1 vote
> Alistair Dixon - 1 vote
> Kristina Rosette - 1 vote
> Tony Holmes - 1 vote
> Greg Ruth - 1 vote
> Bruce Tonkin - 2 votes
> Ross Rader - 2 votes
>
> Total 10 votes in favour
>
> against
> Edmon Chung - 2 Votes
> Chuck Gomes - 2 votes
> Avri Doria - 1 vote
> Sophia Bekele - 1 vote
> Robin Gross - 1 vote
> Norbert Klein - 1 vote
> Total 8 votes against
>
> Tom Keller abstention
>
> No votes from the following people who were absent:
> Ute Decker
> Kiyoshi Tsuru
> Tony Harris
> Mawaki Chango
> Cary Karp
> Jon Bing
>
>
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
> "1. Raising an Issue
>
> An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by
> any of
> the following:
>
> b. 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."
>
> There were 15 voting Council members present, representing 20
> votes. The
> 10 votes in favour represent 50%, while only 25% is required
> by the bylaws.
>
> I hope this clarifies the situation.
> Please let me know if you have other questions. The minutes
> will be out
> soon.
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
> Mawaki Chango a écrit :
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|