Dear Chuck: In response to your request, attached is a revised copy of the GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implementation Plan (v2) that includes the table of Council member seats. Modifications have been made to reflect Kristina's clarifying comments about her term as an IPC representative. I agree with the comments during Thursday's Council meeting that much of the hard follow-up work for the transition to the new Council transition is in the hands of the Stakeholder Groups now, but since Article XX, Section 5 of the Bylaws Amendments package calls for the Council to develop a Restructure Implementation Plan, I am hopeful that, like Kristina, other Council members will contribute their thoughts and comments on the draft document. Cheers, Rob Hoggarth On 8/14/09 8:27 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Adrian, It seems to me that if we follow this approach, any vote on a travel policy that provides possible funding for all Councilors would create a conflict for everyone who plans to request travel funds. Because a majority of Councilors may fit that category, we would never be able to achieve a majority if they all abstained. Also, the decision would then be left to those who are not going to request the funds, which I am not sure is fair. I personally think that we should try to get more information about what the actual need may be so that we know what we are actually dealing with. In the case of the RyC, we have one Council seat that will be up for election. Assuming that my seat and Edmon's are left in tack, that means that we have the possibility of having either three or four people affected by this motion; three if Jordi is re-elected; four if a new person is selected to fill his seat. I for one will not be requesting travel funds and I will check with Edmon and Jordi. Rob - would you please resend the analysis that was done regarding Council seats that shows which seats are termed out, which ones are continuing, etc. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:00 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Additional topic and motion for this weeks agenda
Avri,
I propose that if and when this motion is made that all Councillors that may not be continuing on the new Council due to the reorganisation abstain from voting as they are significantly conflicted. That is; they are effectively voting for their own free trip to ICANN.
Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 2:31 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Additional topic and motion for this weeks agenda
Hi,
Since I was not able to send the proposed letter on increased travel support due to the absence of consensus, I have added it as an AOB topic to the agenda and have included a possible motion. Since this letter has been on the table and list for consensus consideration for over 2 weeks, I hope that it is acceptable to put it forward for this week's meeting.
the motion (as yet not made or seconded):
Motion made by:
Seconded by:
Whereas:
The plan is to seat the new council in Seoul,
and current council members may not longer be council members at that time
Resolved:
Send the following letter:
Letter to Kevin Wilson,
I have been mandated by the GNSO council, by a vote of XX to YY, to request support not only for the members of the new bi-cameral council to be seated at Seoul, but also for those current council members who may not be continuing on the new council due to the reorganization.
The reason this request is being made is to provide continuity to the GNSO council at this time of restructuring, reorganization and 'improvement.'
Thank you Avri Doria for the GNSO Council
-- thanks
a.