RE: [council] Point for Discussion
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:50:32 -0400
- In-reply-to: <007501c7c457$eec18fd0$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcfD9oWgSVTTMbSRQlGruB/6TthfMAAYGGIwAAjzIHA=
- Thread-topic: [council] Point for Discussion
Good point Philip. I wonder if it would be helpful to ask John for
additional advice regarding what we are considering and how best to
pursue it, assuming of course there is interest by other constituencies
besides the RyC.
"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."
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:41 AM
To: 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
Chuck raises a good point.
The current situation is a disenfranchisement and needs
However, the proposal does not get us over the by-laws situation
which has brought us to the current state of misery.
The by-laws state - as they have done more or less since ICANN
"Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the
GNSO Council through use of ..... ; provided that (a) all members
participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another,
...... (c) ICANN adopts and implements means of verifying that (x) a
person participating in such a meeting is a member of the GNSO Council
or other person entitled to participate in the meeting and (y) all
actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are taken or cast only by the
members of the GNSO Council and not persons who are not members".
It is this provision that Louis Touton interpreted to ALLOW
It is this provision that John Jeffreys interpreted to DENY
Until we change this by-law , we are sunk and disenfranchised.