ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Council meeting today

My understanding from the comments shared in our follow-up meeting in Sydney is 
that the IPC and the BC would vote against the motion regardless of what 
comments are made.  Did I misunderstand? If not, it doesn't seem to me to make 
much sense to delay voting on the motion if the results won't change anything.

Please let me know if I misunderstood.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:50 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [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 abstain. 
> -----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.
> Thanks,
> Stéphane
> 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 >>>