RE: [council] Point for Discussion

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
I'm not sure what you mean to say with this. Maybe the section
you're quoting is not enough to give a comprehensive view of the
responsibilities regarding a PDP. Or do you mean to say the
council has been in violation of the bylaws by developing
policies itself as opposed to *just* managing the process, which
the whole GNSO was supposed to cary out?

Mawaki


--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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."
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>