That is not my understanding. The BC needs a complete document for it to review. The omitted issues are critical. Public comment also is essential before the GNSO Council should vote. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 1:14 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting today My understanding from the comments shared in our follow-up meeting in Sydney is that the IPC and the BC would vote against the motion regardless of what comments are made. Did I misunderstand? If not, it doesn't seem to me to make much sense to delay voting on the motion if the results won't change anything. Please let me know if I misunderstood. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:50 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting today
I will be on the call, barring any unanticipated client emergency.
I am also very puzzled by the possibility of a vote on a document that is out for public comment. (Stéphane, it looks pretty official to me: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30jun09-en. htm). I've made clear in the past my concern that the GNSO Council (and ICANN more generally) has no good process for incorporating and acting on submissions made during public comments. I still have those general concerns. Having a vote on the by-laws while they are out for public comment sends, in my view, a very clear message to the community that public comment is not relevant to GNSO Council Action and, in fact, is so irrelevant that the Council will go ahead and act during the comment period itself. That's not a message that I am willing to send and not one that the Council as a whole should be sending.
Given that we are in the middle of the comment period, I recommend that we defer a vote until after the public comment period closes so that we have an opportunity to read and act upon those comments (and, hopefully, have a complete document by that time, too). If the vote will proceed today, I will abstain.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:20 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Council meeting today
Mike's email is a timely reminder (for me at any rate) of a pressing issue upon which the Council must vote: the bylaws.
As I stated earlier in the week, I too will be unable to attends tonight's meeting. However, I have a slightly different take on the bylaws vote than Mike. My understanding is that the official comment period hasn't started yet, and can only start once the document is approved by the Council. If this is indeed the case, then we must be looking to approve it asap. I submitted an earlier version of the document to my constituency and it did not elicit any response. Nor have any subsequent modifications to the document, which have been made public on the GNSO Council list. I would therefore consider that my constituency does not object to this document and feel that I am in a position to vote for, should there be proxy voting on this issue.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 09/07/09 19:54, « Mike Rodenbaugh » <icann@rodenbaugh.com> a écrit :
Hello,
I cannot make the call today as more pressing matters have
arisen. If
this is subject to proxy voting, then I will vote 'no' on the motion, since we still do not have a complete document to review and vote upon, and the document we do have is still out for public comment for another 20 days. While that public comment forum is very confusing, in any event we should never be voting on a document that is out for public comment, until comments have been reviewed and integrated as appropriate, right?
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com