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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

When did we start voting on initial reports? What I am saying is that it
is not a final report and so there will be nothing to vote on. I don't
believe it is appropriate to make something up to satisfy some perceived
requirement of the Board, and I don't see any such requirement. I also
don't know of any rule that says the Board cannot read or consider an
initial report and the comments that are submitted in regards to it
without Council approval.


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:07 pm
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Tim
Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"
<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Note that there are two concerns about the regularly scheduled meeting
on 16 September: the conflict with the IGF meeting for some subset of
Councilors and the fact that it is after the Board deadline for document
submission in advance of their retreat. 

Article X of the Bylaws, paragraph 4 of Section 3 says, "4. The GNSO
Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of
the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSO Operating
Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided
that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House." The
intent in our September meeting is simply to fulfill our management
responsibility with regard to a request from the Board. I believe that
means that we need to approve sending the VI report to the Board. That
should not be interpreted to be more than that. It is not the Council's
role to change anything that the VI PDP WG has in its report. We could
go back to the WG with questions or we could decide not to send their
report to the Board. Whatever we decide to do, it requires a majority
vote of each House to do it.

My goal in requesting another Doodle poll was to maximize attendance
while still accommodating the two issues mentioned above. Under current
procedures, absentee voting would not be allowed, but it is actually
possible that the latest GCOT recommended changes to the GNSO Operating
Procedures could be approved before our September meeting. If that
occurs, there would be other means for absent Councilors to vote.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:40 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; "Glen_de_Saint_Géry"; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> 
> 
> I understand the quorum issue. All I'm saying is that we should also
> show that we are determined to move on this as soon as we can, not that
> we are holding back. But if there's nothing to vote on come the 8th,
> this is a moot point anyway...
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 19 juil. 2010 à 18:31, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> 
> >
> > I agree. This is too important of an issue to act on with a minimum
> > quorum. And as I said, for all practical purposes, there will be
> nothing
> > to vote on in regards to a VI recommendation anyway. The WG is not
> yet
> > producing a final report and the Council does not create policy. The
> > Board does not need the Council to tell it that it should read the
> > report. If the Board seriously discusses VI at its retreat it would
> be
> > unimaginable that they would not consider that report and any public
> > comment collected on it.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> > attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> > From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:20 am
> > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry
> <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>