ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)

Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a charter for a drafting team? We could be ready to report the vote in August...
After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications, is there really any chance that the board does not know where the constituencies stand on the bylaws? Why spend time negotiating how to package and spoon feed them things they already know? Why not just report the vote per usual and move on? 

Bill


On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote:
Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the Board?
Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet? 

Tony
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of William Drake 
Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)



Begin forwarded message:


From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00
To: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board.
I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list. 

Thanks,

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > a écrit : 




Hi
Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context. 

Bill


On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:



Would it be okay to report the vote something like this:

13 Votes in favor:
Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes
Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes
Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote
etc.

1 Vote against:
Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote

Abstained:
Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement
William Drake (NCUC) Statement

Not present:
Philip Sheppard (CBUC)
Anthony Harris (ISPC)
etc.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am
To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Avri,

Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we
have known it, you may see your way to
accomodating this rather simple request from
three of the existing constituencies.

I beleive that all of us are trying to get the
restructuring process "right", and certain
issues are important to some rather than to
others. I think the Board deserves to be
aware of this.

Thank you.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM
Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws





Avri,
this request is about transparency and relevance.
It is a formal request from the BC.
Philip







***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>