ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

RE: [council] Council vote on by-laws

  • To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Council vote on by-laws
  • From: "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:51 +0100
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE; b=SBfdMa3zqZStyQ6dsAavUw3BYLuU/w6zv7JFnAFwLEJaUFlvSliHFl3PsdxiKO8h/X9mBtRrg4JDOH3at4xUo3zNxVG1V2Y9cbyyPUUo/KvkjE3QivISX3A/WMZ+3Fw/wR9i/dz8Po3wgfrUZcN2QjLoT9dhy9ae+rFMmPexdmE= ;
  • In-reply-to: <9083EC23-934F-4296-87EF-39FF780FBC30@psg.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcoBUCcwveA54ReVQcuSuNUAZJ3RFQAEJjlQ
Avri

Under the circumstances I consider this is a reasonable request and do not
feel it makes any comments on the voting methods, it merely adds a degree of
information which the Board may consider is helpful or alternatively, can
ignore.

I'd formally like to make the request that the information is included on
behalf of the ISPCP constituency.

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 10 July 2009 12:15
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws


Hi,

On 10 Jul 2009, at 04:07, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>
> Avri,
> 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.
>
> Philip
>
>

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.



a.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>