<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
FW: [council] Question.
Stephane. if you want we can let sleeping dogs, but the inaction dont modify
the errors, nor eliminate the responsabilities for something doing bad.
In relation with times to say or object something , our OR&P at point of
order clause (because my claim is a kind of point of order), also establish
(...must be raised as soon as possible..) that:
3.6.1 Points of Order
At a physical meeting, a GNSO Council member may raise a hand or, during a
teleconference, a
GNSO Council member may speak over the dialogue and say immediately "point of
order." A
point of order is raised when there is an infraction of the GNSO Operating
Procedures or
GNSO Operating Procedures, Version 2.3 Page 10
improper decorum in speaking. The point of order must be raised as soon as
possible after the
error occurs. The Chair will suspend discussion to hear the point.
I think we need go back to the OR&P to avoid the possibility to go against
rules.
I am not claiming against nobody, is no personal, but I cant leave pass this
clear situation, where facts go in different way than our OR&P.
All of this, in order to build a better GNSO
Regards.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Subject: Re: [council] Question.
From: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:18:00 +0100
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx
Carlos,
If you go back on the call transcript, you will see that I did not accept or
refuse anything. Thomas had sent his proxy. That fact was read out during roll
call. You did not object, nor did anyone else.
Not having all the rules in my head at any given time and not hearing any
objections, I did not anticipate a possible problem.
As to what should be done now, as there were no objections on the call, and no
objections since the call until your questions yesterday whilst the call was on
November 17 so nearly a full month ago, I am of the mind that no further action
should be taken.
I would also stress that on this specific issue, the whole Council's attention
was drawn to Thomas' proxy by a question from Wolf right after Glen finished
the roll call. The question was on a different matter, but it does show that
there was plenty of opportunity to voice concerns at the time. None was heard.
Moreover, had you voted in Mason's stead, whatever your vote it would have made
no difference to motion 1 and no difference to motion 2. Those were the only
two motions considered at the meeting (motion 3 was deferred).
I would therefore recommend that we let sleeping dogs lie here, and concentrate
on today's meeting.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 15 déc. 2011 à 14:16, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :Stephane . Thanks for
your prompt response, you are very smart and inteligent. But, I consider the
issue is not so simple. And with all my respect I allow myself to say the
following:
The point is not only "Thomas gave his proxy to Mason", the point is that was
against the our established OR&P (on my humble point of view), and this is so
serious, because on my point of view also, somebody must assume the lack of
responsability to approve that conduct, thats the point to have in account.
When we have rules, nobody can do what they want. For that was my question:
#1 why do you accept..... against the rules? Are you or any councilor or even
the council, capable to change our rules, or give authorization to "jump" some
rule? Who is responsible for this situation?
And this, generate another issue: if there are anybody in the call against what
rules say. What happen with the resolution taken in the teleconference? are
valids? this is another point to take in consideration, and I personaly
consider is no a simple thing.
in response to the last paragraph of your answer, I agree with you. On this
sense and without intention to disturb the call, I made a comment to Wolf by
private chat. Obviously, my idea is help to build a better GNSO.
Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los
NegociosSarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Subject: Re: [council] Question.
From: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:15:39 +0100
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx
Carlos,
Thomas gave his proxy to Mason. Perhaps you should enquire with him as to why
he did not give it to you, if you feel that was unfair.
On the second point, this is my read of the rules. The secretariat (Glen)
should feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But to me, your read is wrong.
There are 7 councillors (including the NCA) in the CPH. To me, a majority is
more than half, so 4. If there is another read to the word majority, I do not
see it defined in the rules. One thing seems certain to me however, and that is
that majority does not mean the total number of available councillors, as you
suggest. The rules also say there must be at least one councillor from each SG.
At the very least I was on the call and so was Jeff Neuman. That's one from
each SG in the CPH.
Finally, a more general point. When you have valid questions of this kind, I
feel it would be more helpful to state them during the meeting, so that
something can be done immediately. I would appreciate your support, and the
support of anyone on the Council, in helping to make the meetings run both
smoothly and according to our rules. And because one person can't do everything
at once, it is helpful if you spot something that you feel is not within the
parameters of those rules, to mention it as constructive criticism while the
meeting is in flow. That way, if there really is a problem, it can be remedied
at once.
Stéphane
Le 15 déc. 2011 à 00:17, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :Stephane .
First of all I want to apologize by my ignorance if it the case. Second I ask,
in order to learn more. I ask the question to whom I consider is the person
capable to give me answers.
Going directly to the point, I have to say that I have a few doubts in relation
with the past teleconference call quorum. My specific doubt is about,
differents points:
1- Why did you accept the proxy given by Thomas Rickert to Mason Cole, being
Thomas a NCA, and having in account that our OR&P, the specific rule say:
3.8 Absences and Vacancies3.8.4 Remedy: Temporary Alternatea. For a Councilor
who is not appointed by the Nominating Committee, the appointingorganization
may, at its discretion, name a Temporary Alternate to serve in the absentor
vacant Councilor’s seat.b. For a voting NCA, the Council non-voting NCA is
immediately activated to serve asa Temporary Alternate subject to provisions in
Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate. Thecommunication required pursuant to Section
4.8-Procedures, Paragraph b, if it cannotbe submitted by the voting NCA, will
be completed and forwarded by the non-VotingNCA.-----------------------
2- I understand (correct me if Im wrong) The Quorum needed to session in case
of CPH is 7 Councilors present, all of this accordingChapter 4.0: Voting
4.1 Quorum
In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present. A
quorum is a
majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one
member of each
Stakeholder Group.
In case of the past teleconference call I can see on the transcript record only
6 councilors present & the proxy y (given badly in my point of view) by Thomas
to Mason,
List of attendees:
Contracted Parties House
Registrar Stakeholder Group: Stéphane van Gelder, Mason Cole, Yoav Keren
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Robinson, Ching Chiao-
– absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman
Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Thomas Rickert – absent, apologies proxy
to Mason Cole
Could you explain me what was the procedure to session?
------------------------------------
3 - In a hypothetical case that proxy was bad given (having in account the
rules mentioned), what is the solution for votes in each motion debated on the
call?
others clauses applicable in my point of view, for this case are:
Chapter 4.0: Voting
4.1 Quorum
In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present. A
quorum is a
majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one
member of each
Stakeholder Group........b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been
established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate below)
if
present, would count toward quorum.
(4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may
transfer his or
her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).) BUT
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate
which
type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy
Giver's
appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the
GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
1 The term “appointing organization” (see Section 1.3.1) does not comprise the
Nominating Committee; therefore,
the Voting Direction remedy does not apply to House NCAs.
1.3 Definitions
1.3.1 An “appointing organization” is defined to be the Stakeholder Group or
Constituency that
elected or appointed a representative to the GNSO Council1. Note that, for the
purposes
of these procedures, the Nominating Committee is not considered an “appointing
organization.”
Im asking you because I sent to Wolf a private chat during the teleconference,
and Im still waiting your response (probably he may have not seen it).
At the end, I want give my thanks in advance for time and the explanation that
you can give me.
Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los
NegociosSarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|