I agree with Kristina’s interpretation of ‘8 days’ as the one customarily used for legal and business deadlines on the planet where I’m from. They are measured in days and not hours, and so the hour of the day is irrelevant unless specifically stated. No need to look at drafting history when the language is clear… But I also agree with Tim’s second paragraph below. The Council does need to act more deliberatively, the schedule for our meetings in Cartagena (and the meetings in the run-up to those meetings) were already packed before the last-day motions. Looking forward to seeing everyone in Cartagena, and having some productive meetings. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:18 PM To: Gomes,Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: RE: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures I appreciate Ray's opinion, but I think if you polled all the GCOT members you may find different opinions as to what was meant. But it is irrelevant. We approved the procedures and I suggest, just as we did with the proxy and DOI/SOI issues, we follow what we agreed to until we change it, and that we do as we have always done in these cases and vote to make an exception. Going forward, I would like the Council to consider putting a more reasonable timeframe on this of 14 calendar days. It is frustrating to spend weeks preparing with our SGs to only have last minute issues crop up that we have to shoot from the hip on. It is neither transparent nor predictable, and our SGs should be able to expect more from the body they've elected to manage these processes. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 4:33 pm To: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> With Ray Fassett's permission, I am forwarding his opinion as chair of the GCOT regarding the intent of the GCOT with regard to the 8 day requirement. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@goto.jobs] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:16 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures Chuck, I admit that I do not recall the GCOT exacting out that 8 days means 192 hours. I also cannot say with absolute surety that the GCOT meant "including" the 8th day which could mean less than 192 hours. Now, here's what I think is fair to say: The GCOT did not take the approach of exacting out every possible "what-if" scenario from the procedures. Part of this is because 1) it is an impossible task to do, 2) brings in the law of diminishing returns (inefficiencies), and 3) was implied there would be real world experiences and from the lessons learned modify the procedures through the course of time consistent to the real world experiences. In this example, I am willing to say that there is a spirit to allow the GNSO Council Chair some reasonable discretion in managing the affairs of the GNSO. Hope this helps, Ray Fassett Chair GCOT
-----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:19 PM To: Ray Fassett; Philip Sheppard Subject: FW: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
Did the GCOT and OSC intend that the 8 day advance requirement for motions should literally be 8 x 24 hours = 192 hours?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
Interesting how we pick what we are going to adhere to process wise (certain requests to assign proxies a while back for example) and what we don't. I maintain that a day is a day (24 hours) and that is exactly what the GCOT meant. Regarding what we did in the past, it is just that, the past (two wrongs don't make a right and all that nonsense). Popping motions in the mix at the 11th hour is becoming the norm, not the exception. If the Council votes to make an exception on these two motions then I guess that's the way it is. But questioning what a "day" means is a rediculous argument. These motions did not meet the deadline and I maintain that any exception requires a vote.
If the GCOT meant something else then I would like that explained by them and I would propose that we pull back the procedures in whole to have them all reviewed to be sure we don't have any other convenient interpretations pop up unexpectedly.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 1:52 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim,
My guess is, if we took a survey of Councilors, many would not interpret days so literally as you do and I suspect that the GCOT didn’t mean it that literally either. But I will point out that Glen sent a message reminding Councilors of the 8-day advance requirement and noted that motions were due by 30 November. Glen did that at my request and as you can tell, I have never interpreted the requirement as 192 hours. If it means 192 hours, then I suspect that we have missed the deadline many times in the past.
Regardless, I still maintain that we should spend our time focusing on the issues not the process, especially when we are talking about something where we clearly had different understandings regarding the deadline.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion deadline per operating procedures
The relevant paragraph in section 3.3 of our operating procedures clearly states that motions must be submitted "...no later than 8 days before the GNSO Council meeting." Given that our meeting is scheduled to begin at 1900 UTC on the 8th, neither of the motions submitted yesterday by Mary and Kristina met the deadline of 1900 UTC the 30th.
Again, given that ICANN involves one or more days of travel for many of us, and that any 8 day period also includes at least one weekend, I think it is crucial that motions are submitted as soon as possible and the deadline should be strictly observed.
Tim