Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:15:03 -0400
- In-reply-to: <56BB89B8B2594B9696240C01B25882E8@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <F45F9DD7-8AEC-4AB1-B509-F269AACC6CF0@acm.org> <56BB89B8B2594B9696240C01B25882E8@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 10 Jul 2009, at 04:07, Philip Sheppard wrote:
in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please
capture the following:
1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour.
2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant.
I feel that reporting it this way would be inappropriate as it is
making a point about the voting methods that are valid under the
currently By Laws which state:
X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of
votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote
of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is
a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided
(See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes
that GNSO Council members may cast.)
While I understand that many people in the GNSO Council object to the
weighted voting method that is the current rule, and that approval of
these bylaws will change that, it does not seem appropriate for me to
make that point in reporting the vote. As the current process is
defined, when it comes to voting, there is no differentiation between
council members based on constituency or even Nomcom.