RE: [council] Council meeting today

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

It depended on what changes, if any, were made in the interim and what changes 
were proposed.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:14 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO
Subject: 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.

Chuck 

> -----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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>