Well, if that’s the case and the
Board know everything anyway, then why bother to have a vote at all???
But as there was a vote, I would appreciate
knowing what if anything has happened since.
From: William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 13 July 2009 13:22
To: Tony Holmes
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] RE:
[council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a
charter for a drafting team? We could be ready to report the vote in
August...
After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications, is
there really any chance that the board does not know where the constituencies
stand on the bylaws? Why spend time negotiating how to package and spoon
feed them things they already know? Why not just report the vote
per usual and move on?
Bill
On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote:
Does that mean we can all indicate how we
would have voted to the Board?
Avri - could you provide can update of
where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board
regarding this vote yet?
Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
I agree that Tim's approach is sensible.
But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded
that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate,
I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board.
I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email
address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to
the Council list.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
a écrit :
Avri's proposed approach is sensible and
would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment
that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board
members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's
approach would be preferable in that context.
On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz
wrote:
Would it be okay to report the vote
something like this:
Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes
Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement
William Drake (NCUC) Statement
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on
by-laws
Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am
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
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM
Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws
this request is about transparency and
relevance.
It is a formal request from the BC.
***********************************************************
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
***********************************************************
|