RE: [council] Council meeting today
I was not clear on that and, even if I was, that was after our follow-up
meeting.
It's still not clear what's going on w/r/t the allocation of seats in NCSG
house.
K
-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:07 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting today
It seems quite clear that the Board is not going to do anything with regard to
Board seats 13 and 14 before the end of July. I thought they made that clear
in Sydney.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:00 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Council meeting today
>
> It depended on what changes, if any, were made in the interim and what
> changes were proposed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:14 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>