GNSO review - principles for discussion
Dear Council members, I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. Allow me to propose some. DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION Council should have discussion on selected topics first. Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies and other parties. Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. Then Council may consider a resolution. VOTING When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting basis will be one person, one vote. (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.) QUORUM A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda. (This should help us to discuss the important things first). Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles to help us in our work? Philip
Philip I could certainly support this approach, it puts the right perspective on the debate and defines a workable structure when we consider aspects of the review. It's never wise to start any debate with a resolution and I was surprised at the speed we hurtled down that path this time. On the issue of voting, I don't believe it was ever envisioned that approach would be adopted across the board on aspects outside of policy development. There appears to be no justification for that, so again I support the proposed methodology. Tony . -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: 10 November 2006 09:42 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO review - principles for discussion Dear Council members, I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. Allow me to propose some. DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION Council should have discussion on selected topics first. Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies and other parties. Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. Then Council may consider a resolution. VOTING When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting basis will be one person, one vote. (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.) QUORUM A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda. (This should help us to discuss the important things first). Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles to help us in our work? Philip
Philip, I agree whole-heartedly! Greg --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Dear Council members,
I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. Allow me to propose some.
DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION
Council should have discussion on selected topics first. Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies and other parties. Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. Then Council may consider a resolution.
VOTING
When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting basis will be one person, one vote. (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.)
QUORUM
A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda. (This should help us to discuss the important things first).
Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles to help us in our work?
Philip
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Hi, While I certainly agree in principle in the 'one council member - one vote' principle, I am curious how it fits in with the rules the GNSO council operates under. Do the rules actually bifurcate between policy votes and other votes? I did not think so, but perhaps I am missing a critical passage or bit of hermeneutics. a. On 10 nov 2006, at 07.48, Greg Ruth wrote:
Philip, I agree whole-heartedly! Greg
--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Dear Council members,
I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. Allow me to propose some.
DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION
Council should have discussion on selected topics first. Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies and other parties. Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. Then Council may consider a resolution.
VOTING
When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting basis will be one person, one vote. (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.)
QUORUM
A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda. (This should help us to discuss the important things first).
Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles to help us in our work?
Philip
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
The suggestion that we can selectively disregard the Bylaws and decide amongst ourselves how much each of our votes should be weighted came as quite a surprise to me too. I need to be convinced (with an authoritative text such as Bylaws) that we have this authority to pick and choose when weighted voting applies. Also, I do not agree that this issue is NOT a policy decision and therefore weighted voting should not apply (assuming we have the authority to disregard weighted voting on "non-policy" issues). I think we all know that "architecture is policy" so I don't see how the make-up of the GNSO policy council is NOT a policy decision. Robin Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
While I certainly agree in principle in the 'one council member - one vote' principle, I am curious how it fits in with the rules the GNSO council operates under. Do the rules actually bifurcate between policy votes and other votes? I did not think so, but perhaps I am missing a critical passage or bit of hermeneutics.
a.
On 10 nov 2006, at 07.48, Greg Ruth wrote:
Philip, I agree whole-heartedly! Greg
--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Dear Council members,
I feel we should set ourselves some principles upon which we wish to further discussion on matters connected with the two reviews of the GNSO Council and the GNSO. Allow me to propose some.
DISCUSSION BEFORE RESOLUTION
Council should have discussion on selected topics first. Then there should be time to air that discussion with Constituencies and other parties. Then Council should discuss the outcome of that wider discussion. Then Council may consider a resolution.
VOTING
When Council takes any vote, be it indicative or not, the voting basis will be one person, one vote. (There can be no justification for having the policy-related double voting for certain constituencies for matters such as GNSO review. To do so would be especially ironic considering the review proposes the removal of such double votes.)
QUORUM
A proposal for priority discussion should be proposed and seconded and then supported by a majority of constituencies before it is added to a Council agenda. (This should help us to discuss the important things first).
Are we all in agreement with the above ? Are there other principles to help us in our work?
Philip
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Greg Ruth -
Philip Sheppard -
Robin Gross -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com