Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes
All How is it possible that all of our BC Councillors (and many others) were absent for this important vote and that this motion is able to go forward? Of course I understand weighted voting but this doesn't seem right? What are the implication of this? Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757 Begin forwarded message:
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: 15 July 2009 05:27:13 BST To: secretary@icann.org, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@chambers.gen.nz
, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org>, gnso-council-draft@icann.org Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@icann.org Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes
To the Board;
This constitutes formal notification to the Board, to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board.
Avri Doria Chair, GNSO Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By-Law Changes Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes
Whereas
On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm
On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-bylaws-changes-re-gnso-27mar09.pdf
Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and
On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-restructure-08jun09.pdf
On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/by-laws-legal-12jun09.pdf
Resolved
The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean...
The Motion passed.
12 Votes in favour: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries constituency) (two votes each) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote each)
3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency).
1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency).
Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker (Intellectual Property Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Terry Davis (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar constituency).
Kristina Rosette: Reason for abstention: It is inappropriate for there to be a vote on the by-laws until we have a resolution of the allocation of Board seats 13 and 14 as well as the absence of language pertaining to the temporary transitional allocation of the six seats in the NCSG.
Bill Drake: Reason for abstention: Reason for abstention: I abstain because the document is not done and we are waiting for clarification of some closely linked issues that will affect our participation in the new GNSO
Carlos Souza: Reason for abstaining: I understand that the wording regarding the NCSG seats have been changed and we do not have the blank space at the end of the clause as it was presented in Sydney. However, there are some issues that require further input and the document as today is still incomplete on that regard.
Posted by: Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
---------------------- Additional notes:
I. The vote was originally scheduled for 24 June 2009, but held over at the request of several constituencies. It has been GNSO Council practice to postpone a vote for one (1) meeting when a constituency asks for more time for considering the motion within the constituency.
II. The meeting for the vote was originally scheduled for 2 July 2009, but was postposed until 9 July 2009 at a council meeting on 25 June 2009. There were no recorded objections to the scheduling of the meeting for that date.
III. The decision described above, was made according to the ByLaws currently in effect:
X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. (See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes that GNSO Council members may cast.)
IV. The absentee ballot rule was not put in to effect due to consultation with Legal Counsel that indicated that this was neither a Policy Process vote nor an Election, and those are the only two occasions where the absentee ballot is approved.
V. The Commercial and Business Users Constituency, endorsed by the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, formally requested that the following information be included in the formal notification of the vote:
1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
Liz, I have recently posted this follow-up to the Board after losing the argument on Council. Philip ----------------- To the Board; This constitutes additional notification to the Board, to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note there was considerable unease about the GNSO Council taking this vote before the closure of public comments and while key by-laws changes (Board seats, NCSG seating) were not yet embedded in proposed text. The vote taken was technically a pass at a barely quorate meeting. The following may be of assistance to the Board in understanding the level of support of the GNSO vote: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. Philip Sheppard
Many thanks Philip -- that helps. The Board really need to know the status of this -- it is, by any reading, not a consensus motion and remains structurally flawed. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757 On 15 Jul 2009, at 08:51, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Liz, I have recently posted this follow-up to the Board after losing the argument on Council. Philip ----------------- To the Board;
This constitutes additional notification to the Board, to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note there was considerable unease about the GNSO Council taking this vote before the closure of public comments and while key by-laws changes (Board seats, NCSG seating) were not yet embedded in proposed text. The vote taken was technically a pass at a barely quorate meeting. The following may be of assistance to the Board in understanding the level of support of the GNSO vote:
1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
Philip Sheppard
unfortunately, the Board will note that the two constituencies reps weren't in attendance to abstain or vote no. I am not sure that the 'quorum' issue will have any favor with the Board in this instance. Marilyn S. Cade 202 360 1196 or 202 251 6787 mscade@att.net or marilynscade@hotmail.com
CC: bc-gnso@icann.org From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: philip.sheppard@aim.be Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:29:48 +0100
Many thanks Philip -- that helps.
The Board really need to know the status of this -- it is, by any reading, not a consensus motion and remains structurally flawed.
Liz ...
Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757
On 15 Jul 2009, at 08:51, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Liz, I have recently posted this follow-up to the Board after losing the argument on Council. Philip ----------------- To the Board;
This constitutes additional notification to the Board, to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note there was considerable unease about the GNSO Council taking this vote before the closure of public comments and while key by-laws changes (Board seats, NCSG seating) were not yet embedded in proposed text. The vote taken was technically a pass at a barely quorate meeting. The following may be of assistance to the Board in understanding the level of support of the GNSO vote:
1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
Philip Sheppard
Good NYT article http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owner s-and-domainers/ Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris@andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email
I know Saul Hansell from prior tech issues I worked on, and he was at Monday's event in NYC in large part because I made him aware of it and encouraged his attendance, suggesting it might make for a good story. As it worked out he got three good stories from it. I thought his piece on the trademark issues was reasonably balanced, and only took issue with his final sentence, "I don't envy the Icann staff, which has to work out a compromise that will prevent the outbreak of a world war over domain names." In response to that, I sent him this e-mail: "Enjoyed your follow-up piece this morning. My only comment would be that it's not up to ICANN staff to broker a compromise -- if the URS is major new policy -- and our IRT comment letter lays out why we think it would almost entirely displace the UDRP at new gTLDs, and our view is backed up 100% by the comment letter submitted by the Chair of the GNSO -- then ICANN's rules call for a Policy Development Process in which the affected parties work out their own consensus. As I stated yesterday, ICA is ready and willing to constructively engage in a fast track process that addresses UDRP reform in a way that curbs abuses by both sides and applies the revised policy to all gTLDs, including .com." Summing up, how this URS debate plays out will demonstrate whether ICANN really has a bottom up consensus policy process or whether it's been displaced by a staff-brokered policy process. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:15 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Brokering Peace Between Brand Owners and Domainers Good NYT article http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owner s-and-domainers/ Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris@andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email
This is indeed distressing. When I was a councilor, long ago and far away now, under a different chair, thus a different 'ethic', we had a discussion about requiring enough representation from the Council to have a quorum, that wasn't just about numbers, but was also about representation from different constituencies. This looks like it clearly wasn't 'representative' but there was representation from IPC, Ry, RC, NCUC, and NomComm; thus four of the six... plus NomComm, so in fact, it was 'representative' in terms of constituencies. but it is surprising that all councilors were absent from ISPs and BC. From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:43:53 +0100 All How is it possible that all of our BC Councillors (and many others) were absent for this important vote and that this motion is able to go forward? Of course I understand weighted voting but this doesn't seem right? What are the implication of this? Liz ... Liz Williams+44 1963 364 380+44 7824 877757 Begin forwarded message:From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>Date: 15 July 2009 05:27:13 BSTTo: secretary@icann.org, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org>, gnso-council-draft@icann.orgCc: gnso-restruc-dt@icann.orgSubject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes To the Board; This constitutes formal notification to the Board, to the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO restructuring as mandated by the Board. Avri Doria Chair, GNSO Council -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By-Law Changes Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes Whereas On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-bylaws-changes-re-gnso-27mar09.pdf Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-restructure-08jun09.pdf On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/by-laws-legal-12jun09.pdf Resolved The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean... The Motion passed. 12 Votes in favour: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries constituency) (two votes each) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote each) 3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency). 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency). Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker (Intellectual Property Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), Terry Davis (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar constituency). Kristina Rosette: Reason for abstention: It is inappropriate for there to be a vote on the by-laws until we have a resolution of the allocation of Board seats 13 and 14 as well as the absence of language pertaining to the temporary transitional allocation of the six seats in the NCSG. Bill Drake: Reason for abstention: Reason for abstention: I abstain because the document is not done and we are waiting for clarification of some closely linked issues that will affect our participation in the new GNSO Carlos Souza: Reason for abstaining: I understand that the wording regarding the NCSG seats have been changed and we do not have the blank space at the end of the clause as it was presented in Sydney. However, there are some issues that require further input and the document as today is still incomplete on that regard. Posted by: Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ---------------------- Additional notes: I. The vote was originally scheduled for 24 June 2009, but held over at the request of several constituencies. It has been GNSO Council practice to postpone a vote for one (1) meeting when a constituency asks for more time for considering the motion within the constituency. II. The meeting for the vote was originally scheduled for 2 July 2009, but was postposed until 9 July 2009 at a council meeting on 25 June 2009. There were no recorded objections to the scheduling of the meeting for that date. III. The decision described above, was made according to the ByLaws currently in effect: X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. (See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes that GNSO Council members may cast.) IV. The absentee ballot rule was not put in to effect due to consultation with Legal Counsel that indicated that this was neither a Policy Process vote nor an Election, and those are the only two occasions where the absentee ballot is approved. V. The Commercial and Business Users Constituency, endorsed by the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, formally requested that the following information be included in the formal notification of the vote: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
participants (5)
-
Chris Chaplow -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard