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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Difficult? It's not difficult at all. The WG is nowhere near consensus.
I know of no reason why we have to call a special meeting or move the
scheduled one to act on some motion to notify the Board of something
they already know. That makes absolutely no sense. Seems that at every
turn we keep looking for ways to make more work for ourselves.

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 4:57 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Glen_de_Saint_Géry
<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >