ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC

  • To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:13:55 -0700
  • Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.14.8

Is a CIF created simply by submitting a request/application, or is there
other criteria? Also, the SC members, upon full consensus, should be
able to bar disruptive observers.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the
compositon of the OSC
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, October 10, 2008 5:27 pm
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


If we went this direction, then pending constituencies could participate
without voting until such time that they were approved as a constituency
and then they could vote. That doesn't sound bad to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on 
> the compositon of the OSC
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 12:02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I am hoping there will be more discussion like this and to 
> encourage 
> > it even more, I second the motion for the amendment.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> > We will probably have to define 'full consensus' more 
> precisely. Would 
> > 'observers' be included in full consensus? If so, then what is the 
> > difference between being a regular member and an observer?
> 
> I have always assumed it was full consensus of members not 
> including other participants. for example wile the comments 
> of staff are always highly valued, I did not assume they were 
> figuring into the consensus decisions. they are list among 
> other participants. Note: this is different then in the 
> planing team where staff are members of the team due to the 
> nature of the Board's mandate to staff and council.
> 
> If necessary for clarity we could amend the two instances of:
> 
> Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, 
> committee decisions
> will be made using a "full consensus" process.
> 
> to
> 
> Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, 
> committee decisions
> will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process.
> 
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 







<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>