ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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 ensure you
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.
Thank you.


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 herein. (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.


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