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

[Stephvg2 <stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

Is there a Time limit for people who abstained to respond with a  
reason why they did so?
Thanks,

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 13 juil. 2009 à 15:16, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a  
écrit :
> 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 responses.
> Chuck
>
> 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 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@graduateinstitute.c 
> h> 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
> > > >