RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Then pick another day when you're not going to have so many people absent OR 
restrict all votes to those topics on which absentee voting is permitted.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Tim Ruiz; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum attendance at 
Council meeting on 8 September 2010

But we have been pushing the VI WG hard to meet their deadlines and as you both 
know, being part of the group as you are, there's been a tremendous amount of 
work and effort by the WG in that regard.

I wonder if the Council should not also be prepared to pull out all the stops 
to get this done asap..?

Stéphane

Le 19 juil. 2010 à 17:42, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> 
> Even if we do have a meeting on the 8th (and I'm not thrilled at moving it 
> after some of us plan around them), no votes should be taken.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:15 AM
> To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum 
> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> 
> 
> I object to moving the meeting to the 8th. All it seems to do is favor one 
> group of Councilors over another, those who find IGF to be in conflict over 
> those who do not. Have we determined that any fewer would be available if we 
> don't move it? 
> 
> And I think it's pretty clear that the VI WG will not be submitting any 
> consensus based recommendations, in fact it will only be an initial report 
> not final. So there really is nothing urgent for the Council to take action 
> on. The initial report of the VI WG will likely be out for public comment so 
> the Board is perfectly capable of reviewing it and taking any of it into 
> consideration. In addition, given our tradition of putting an action off for 
> one meeting if requested it is unlikely that any action would be taken anyway.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum 
> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:00 am
> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Dear Councillors,
> 
> On behalf of Chuck Gomes: "we are planning to change the 16 September 
> meeting to 8 September because of the IGF meetings the week of our 
> regularly scheduled meeting and because of the need to finalize action 
> on the VI PDP WG report in order to provide the Board information on 
> VI
> 11 days before their retreat. The first Doodle poll results indicated that a 
> quorum could be achieved (6 of 7 in the contracted party house and 8 of 13 in 
> the non-contracted party house for a meeting at the regularly planned time of 
> 11:00 UTC. The purpose of this poll is to see if there would be stronger 
> attendance at the other time we use for Council meetings, that is 15:00 UTC. 
> If the new poll does not improve the availability of Councilors, we will go 
> ahead and hold the meeting at 11:00 UTC."
> 
> Please complete the attached Doodle poll to this purpose no later than 
> Monday, 26 July 2010. 
> 
> http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq
> 
> Time-zone is active
> 
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards
> 
> 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
>