[council] RE: ISO clarification of "This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process"

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Avri.  This is helpful.

The possibility of such a path is exactly why I was concerned about
restricting our options so far ahead of constituency statements and
public comments.

Kristina   

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: Re: ISO clarification of "This overview should include the text
of motions to be voted on at the end of this process"

Hi,

My reason for including proposal for motions in the draft report was to
give people, constituencies and the public, a chance to comment on those
as well as on the content of the reports.

Nothing in the motion indicates that we cannot change motions or even
submit new ones.  Though, personally, I would hope that any new ones
would happen because the constituencies and the public review sent us
down a path we had not thought of already.  I think it is best, if our
general intentions were obvious from the beginning of the review.

My proposal is to vote on as many proposal as we have when it comes time
to vote.  Optimally we would evolve to one consensus motion, but if that
doeasn't happen then gauging things on the support various motions get
may be the best indicator we can give to the board and staff.

so I would think the answers would be:

1. no, but it would be a helpful indicator if there were a second from
    another constituency etc...
2. yes
3. no, but i think that any new motion should be tabled at least a week
    before the vote unless it really is a last minute revalation/
consensus
    that seems like a no-brainer to most all.

thanks for asking.

a.


On 7 sep 2007, at 13.05, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> I need clarification of "This overview should include the text of 
> motions to be voted on at the end of this process."
>
> 1.  Must motions be seconded not later than September 11 in order to 
> be included in the overview?
>
> 2.  Can motions be amended or revised after September 11? After 
> September 13?
>
> 3.  Will the Council final vote during the LA public GNSO Council 
> meeting be limited to those motions - and only those motions that have

> been included in the "overview"?
>
> My preferred answers are "no" (to 1), "yes" (to 2), and "no" (to 3).
>
> If the answer to 2 is "no" and the answer to 3 is "yes," this process 
> would seem to contradict the entire purpose of having Constituencies 
> submit statements, providing a public comment period, and conducting a

> Public-Council discussion.  If the motions the Council will vote on in

> LA will be set in stone by September 13, it seems to me that we are 
> communicating to the ICANN community the message that we really don't 
> care what they think. That's not a message I want to communicate.
>
> Apologies for the "urgent" indicator, but the clock is ticking.
>
> Kristina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:06 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: [council] Text of proposed final motions for Whois
>
> hi,
>
> This is in reference to:
>
>> 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task 
>> Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an 
>> overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This 
>> overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end

>> of this process.
>
> In order for Liz G. to include the text of proposed final motions in 
> the draft final report she is preparing, she needs to have the text by

> Tuesday  11 September.
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>