<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
- To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
- From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:44:10 +0530
- Authentication-results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
- Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1478502862; bh=zsUpRCBgytd2G9+6HmCMINIehssC6+Y0LqpkfoBvnNg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=tGCjdRc5bn/K59OUJ7SQtjWjgHauPTr+GX9rcqHpjhXswE+jHfFoO6F1besYky09N OGtbm/2qo3b9KD5D2vUoq8fSVKU2B6nd0XO4443a+1KuaqyhDLP+kk8twDqeTpot3I QFrVbnHfHWf5/s3YhRnHC9sGO50FBBor6YWHpohw=
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br D3E371C2870
- In-reply-to: <57843183-48CC-4538-9F56-3A544E27AC63@godaddy.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <57843183-48CC-4538-9F56-3A544E27AC63@godaddy.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
James,
I do take those changes as friendly.
Rubens
> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Councilors –
>
> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier
> motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last
> night’s working session.
>
> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these
> changes as friendly.
> Thank you,
> J
>
>
> 1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws
> Implementation Drafting Team and next steps
> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)
> Made by: James Bladel
> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
>
> WHEREAS:
> 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting
> Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or
> additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised
> Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the
> Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures
> (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and
> responsibilities”;
> 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide
> the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus
> of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further
> changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective
> GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not
> later than 30 September 2016”;
> 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were
> expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading
> to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
> 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October
> 2016
> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf)
>
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf)>.
> The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
>
> RESOLVED:
>
> 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as
> submitted.
> 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed
> language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating
> Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to
> the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the
> proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and
> report their findings to the GNSO Council.
> 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves
> available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
> 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO
> Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the
> minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public
> comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments
> received will be given meaningful consideration.
> 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the
> adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN
> Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
> 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort,
> especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
>
> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|