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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:20 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; '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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>