Updated motion for 9 July
Hi, The motion that was made by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes on 24 June and deferred due to constituencies needing more time to review, has been updated in: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?09_july_motions to refer to the draft of the bylaws as posted by the Staff in: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#gnso-restr... . It currently reads: By-Law Changes (deferred from 24 June 2009) Motion made by: Avri Doria Seconded by: Chuck Gomes Whereas On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to restructuring of the GNSO; and On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies; and On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the Whole; and On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the GNSO Committee of the whole. Resolved The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clean...
Avri, in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please ensure you capture the following: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant. Thank you. Philip
First apologies for not being able to make the call, I was traveling at the time and unable to join. Second, I'd like to support Philip's request, it's a very significant point which the Board need to be aware of. Thanks Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: 10 July 2009 09:08 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please ensure you capture the following: 1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour. In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant. Thank you. Philip
Hi, On 10 Jul 2009, at 04:07, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please ensure you capture the following:
1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant. Thank you.
Philip
I feel that reporting it this way would be inappropriate as it is making a point about the voting methods that are valid under the currently By Laws which state:
X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. (See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes that GNSO Council members may cast.)
While I understand that many people in the GNSO Council object to the weighted voting method that is the current rule, and that approval of these bylaws will change that, it does not seem appropriate for me to make that point in reporting the vote. As the current process is defined, when it comes to voting, there is no differentiation between council members based on constituency or even Nomcom. a.
Avri Under the circumstances I consider this is a reasonable request and do not feel it makes any comments on the voting methods, it merely adds a degree of information which the Board may consider is helpful or alternatively, can ignore. I'd formally like to make the request that the information is included on behalf of the ISPCP constituency. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 10 July 2009 12:15 To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws Hi, On 10 Jul 2009, at 04:07, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, in explaining to the Board the Council vote on the by-laws please ensure you capture the following:
1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour. 2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.
In this particular subject matter, this information is relevant. Thank you.
Philip
I feel that reporting it this way would be inappropriate as it is making a point about the voting methods that are valid under the currently By Laws which state:
X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. (See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes that GNSO Council members may cast.)
While I understand that many people in the GNSO Council object to the weighted voting method that is the current rule, and that approval of these bylaws will change that, it does not seem appropriate for me to make that point in reporting the vote. As the current process is defined, when it comes to voting, there is no differentiation between council members based on constituency or even Nomcom. a.
Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip
Avri, Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies. I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this. Thank you. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws
Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip
I agree. However, seems how your are seeking a more descriptive representation of the ballot I think you are only telling half the story in your synopsis Philip. A description of absentees and abstentions seems more appropriate to me. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, 10 July 2009 11:28 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip
I was not suggesting my text as the only description - the usual text for abstentions should be there too. Just need the Board to be clear on this. Philip
participants (6)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Anthony Harris -
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Philip Sheppard -
Tony Holmes