RE: [council] Council meeting today

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems quite clear that the Board is not going to do anything with regard to 
Board seats 13 and 14 before the end of July.  I thought they made that clear 
in Sydney. 

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:00 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting today
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>