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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We would be voting on whether to send a response to the Board's request that 
may or may not include the initial report.  That simply communicates to the 
Board that the Council was involved as a manager of the ongoing PDP.

Why make this more difficult that it already is?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:37 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Rosette,Kristina; Glen_de_Saint_Géry; Council GNSO;
> Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Subject: RE: [council] Doodle poll: To determine time for maximum
> attendance at Council meeting on 8 September 2010
> 
> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >