ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Council meeting today

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting today
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:49:56 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <C67C0166.1B3DC%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcoAvjl1VfOIOL32QLyNly3C5H7kUwAA59ecAACXiVA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Council meeting today

I will be on the call, barring any unanticipated client emergency.

I am also very puzzled by the possibility of a vote on a document that is out 
for public comment.  (Stéphane, it looks pretty official to me: 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30jun09-en.htm).  I've made 
clear in the past my concern that the GNSO Council (and ICANN more generally) 
has no good process for incorporating and acting on submissions made during 
public comments.  I still have those general concerns.  Having a vote on the 
by-laws while they are out for public comment sends, in my view, a very clear 
message to the community that public comment is not relevant to GNSO Council 
Action and, in fact, is so irrelevant that the Council will go ahead and act 
during the comment period itself.  That's not a message that I am willing to 
send and not one that the Council as a whole should be sending.  

Given that we are in the middle of the comment period, I recommend that we 
defer a vote until after the public comment period closes so that we have an 
opportunity to read and act upon those comments (and, hopefully, have a 
complete document by that time, too).  If the vote will proceed today, I will 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:20 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] Council meeting today

Mike's email is a timely reminder (for me at any rate) of a pressing issue upon 
which the Council must vote: the bylaws.

As I stated earlier in the week, I too will be unable to attends tonight's 
meeting. However, I have a slightly different take on the bylaws vote than 
Mike. My understanding is that the official comment period hasn't started yet, 
and can only start once the document is approved by the Council. If this is 
indeed the case, then we must be looking to approve it asap. I submitted an 
earlier version of the document to my constituency and it did not elicit any 
response. Nor have any subsequent modifications to the document, which have 
been made public on the GNSO Council list. I would therefore consider that my 
constituency does not object to this document and feel that I am in a position 
to vote for, should there be proxy voting on this issue.



Le 09/07/09 19:54, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hello,
> I cannot make the call today as more pressing matters have arisen.  If 
> this is subject to proxy voting, then I will vote 'no' on the motion, 
> since we still do not have a complete document to review and vote 
> upon, and the document we do have is still out for public comment for another 
> 20 days.
> While that public comment forum is very confusing, in any event we 
> should never be voting on a document that is out for public comment, 
> until comments have been reviewed and integrated as appropriate, right?
> Thanks,
> Mike
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com

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