Actually, I believe Bruce's approach is the way we should approach this. Just because the Board has not responded to our resolution, does not mean (and call me optimistic) that the Board was ignoring us. As much as we may want the Bylaws to change, although we pass a resolution requesting a change, there is no requirement that the ICANN Board actually respond to such a resolution. On what basis would we have to file a reconsideration request. If I am correct, we would have to show that the Board's action of refusing our recommendation to change the Bylaws, was itself a violation of the current bylaws. In other words, I believe we would have to demonstrate that the Board, under the current bylaws, cannot refuse a request from us to change the Bylaws. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no way we can actually succeed in such a reconsideration request. I believe the way to proceed is to act as if the Bylaws are not going to change in accordance with our request. If they do, great, we will have our reserve. If the Board does not amend the bylaws, then we will have to accept that outcome and move on with our substantive business. In the meantime, I will alert my constituency and begin election proceedings. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:17 PM To: Bruce Tonkin; council@dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Bruce and fellow Councilors I disagree with this approach, which seems to be to say that it is acceptable for the Board to ignore the request from Council. Council should request that the Board acknowledge our resolution, and give an affirmative agreement to the extension which we requested to extend the change until after there is a assessment by Council, after a year of operation as the gNSO. What is the status of our resolution to the Board which laid out the Council's views? Finally, IF the board refuses to accept our recommendation, I believe that we should file a reconsideration request. 202-255-7348c mcade@att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:50 PM To: council@dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? Hello Jeff, Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting. Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws: Article XX, section 5, clause 8: "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO Council no later than 1 October 2003, and shall provide the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall serve a two-year term." The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable. I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia. I also recommend that each constituency select an additional representative as a reserve, should the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3 representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council can be reviewed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us] Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM To: 'council@dnso.org' Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia? All, I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors (http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm). That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2 representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia meeting? In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council members. In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe the bylaws call for all new elections. Please advise. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Director, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Loudoun Tech Center 46000 Center Oak Plaza Building X Sterling, VA 20166 p: (571) 434-5772 f: (571) 434-5735 e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail message and any attachments hereto in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.