Chuck, at that point (when the basic "political" arithmetic became clear with Glen's email), I was no longer disputing the outcome of the vote. I am, however, always inclined to learn and to that effect (and just for that), still interested to check whether the two conclusions in my previous message hold, which I've drawn from this exhance regarding our bylaws and processes. Thanks again. Mawaki --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
One more comment Mawaki. The result is the same whether weighted voting applies or not. Note that I just included members present in the below calculations per the Bylaws.
No weighted voting: 8/15 = 53.3%
Weighted voting: 10/21 = 47.6%
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:52 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 24 May 2007
Assuredly, Glen, this clarifies:
1. that the wighted vote for certain constituencies (1 rep = 2 votes) still weighs in for voting issue report, so i guess at this point that this is the case in every voting (or is there any exception where any council member's vote is equal to any other one's?)
2. that there's no notion of majority (not even relative majority) in voting issue report: if 27% of the council members on the call vote for the IR, and 30% vote against, there will still be an IR.
Is my understanding correct? Many thanks to you Glen and Chuck for helping understand this.
Mawaki
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Mawaki,
The vote count is: in favour: Philip Sheppard - 1 vote Mike Rodenbaugh - 1 vote Alistair Dixon - 1 vote Kristina Rosette - 1 vote Tony Holmes - 1 vote Greg Ruth - 1 vote Bruce Tonkin - 2 votes Ross Rader - 2 votes
Total 10 votes in favour
against Edmon Chung - 2 Votes Chuck Gomes - 2 votes Avri Doria - 1 vote Sophia Bekele - 1 vote Robin Gross - 1 vote Norbert Klein - 1 vote Total 8 votes against
Tom Keller abstention
No votes from the following people who were absent: Ute Decker Kiyoshi Tsuru Tony Harris Mawaki Chango Cary Karp Jon Bing
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
"1. Raising an Issue
An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following:
b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
There were 15 voting Council members present, representing
20 votes.
The 10 votes in favour represent 50%, while only 25% is required by the bylaws.
I hope this clarifies the situation. Please let me know if you have other questions. The minutes will be out soon.
Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Mawaki Chango a écrit :
Council,
My apologies I was finally not available to make it to today teleconf as I had expected.
I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see below), my count of the votes does not match the one you announced on the call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and Greg), 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and 1 Abstention (Thomas).
So I'd request that the correct results be confirmed (after double-checking), and if relevant, the subsequent request of an issue report on IGO names be reconsidered. Thanks,
Mawaki
Item 5: Motion to request issues report on protecting IGO names and abbreviations
Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes the recommendation put forward by the IPC Constituency regarding possible measures in line with WIPO-2 to protect International Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) names and abbreviations as domain names.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that measures to protect
IGO names
and abbreviations are requested in the GAC principles for New gTLDs.
Whereas, the GNSO Council notes that WIPO is the maintenance agency for the authoritative list of relevant IGO names and abbreviations protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/ ).
The GNSO Council requests that the staff produce an issues report on the policy issues associated with adequately handling disputes relating to IGO names and abbreviations as domain names.
The GNSO Council also requests that the staff liaise with WIPO to utilize its knowledge and experience of WIPO-2.
Bruce,
--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 24 May 2007 at:
http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070524.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may
Happy listening!
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org