ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

Nothing has been communicated to the Board regarding the vote.  As Avri 
communicated in our call last week, each person who abstained was to be given 
an opportunity to confirm that their reason for abstaining was recorded 
accurately.  Glen sent a draft of the action on the motion with proposed 
abstention language to the applicable Councilors and we are still waiting for 


        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes
        Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:42 AM
        To: 'William Drake'
        Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
        Subject: [council] RE: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on 
by-laws (from Stéphane)

        Well, if that's the case and the Board know everything anyway, then why 
bother to have a vote at all???


        But as there was a vote, I would appreciate knowing what if anything 
has happened since.



        From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 13 July 2009 13:22
        To: Tony Holmes
        Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
        Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from 


        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 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?





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




                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.





                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



                        1 Vote against:

                        Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote



                        Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement

                        William Drake (NCUC) Statement


                        Not present:

                        Philip Sheppard (CBUC)

                        Anthony Harris (ISPC)





                        -------- 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'"






                        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






                                this request is about transparency and 

                                It is a formal request from the BC.








                William J. Drake

                Senior Associate

                Centre for International Governance

                Graduate Institute of International and

                Development Studies

                Geneva, Switzerland







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