RE: [council] Council meeting today
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>