RE: [council] Point for Discussion

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

Actually Mawaki, I think the Bylaws support this view:

"Section 2. ORGANIZATION

The GNSO shall consist of (i) various Constituencies representing
particular groups of stakeholders, as described in Section 5 of this
Article and (ii) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy
development process of the GNSO."

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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:29 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
> 
> I fully agree with avri's comments here.
> Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that 
> makes some members on the board think that the council should 
> become a management body of working group processes that will 
> elaborate policies.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for 
> > several reasons.  Among those reasons:
> > 
> > - There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives 
> > and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the 
> > constituency.  Although most of the constituencies seem to 
> hold their 
> > representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by 
> > laws mandating this.  I think it is important to maintain the
> > 
> > possibility that every representative participates as an trusted 
> > individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves 
> contrary to the 
> > interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their
> > seat.   
> > Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not 
> always require 
> > constituency discipline.
> > 
> > - It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the 
> > meetings and participate in the discussion.
> > 
> > - The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, 
> opaque, we 
> > would therefore have to take someone's word for it.  And while the 
> > constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be 
> > complete.
> > 
> > - It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who 
> might miss 
> > a meeting.
> > 
> > I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting 
> provisions as 
> > part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make 
> some of its 
> > own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at 
> that point.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> > > I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting
> > on the
> > > Council and support it, but I would like to propose the
> > following
> > > for consideration by the Council.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of
> > their
> > > votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a
> >  
> > > position on an issue and one of their Council
> > representatives
> > > cannot participate in a meeting.  In such a case, it seems 
> > > reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to
> > case all
> > > the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the 
> > > constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the
> > wishes of
> > > the full consituency as determined through the
> > constituencies
> > > established processes.  As I envision this, it would only
> > apply in
> > > cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency
> > 
> > > considered the choices and the constituency as a whole
> > provided
> > > direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we
> > would
> > > simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
> > >
> > > I am not suggesting this because of any recent or
> > anticiapted issue
> > > but rather think that it is a procedure we should define
> > before we
> > > encounter such a situation.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows
> > meeting
> > > but simply one for list discussion.  Depending on the
> > discussion
> > > that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
> > >
> > > 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."
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>