<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Additional topic and motion for this weeks agenda


Let's try this.

Rather than abstain perhaps every Councillor can declare their interest in the 
GNSO Council.

Would it be inappropriate for every Councillor to declare if they or the 
organisation they work for has not ever been remunerated for work, received a 
benefit, or invoiced another organisation for an ICANN (i.e. domain name) 
related or DNS related issue.

Look forward to your responses.

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, 14 August 2009 10:28 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Avri Doria; Council GNSO; Robert Hoggarth
Subject: RE: [council] Additional topic and motion for this weeks agenda


It seems to me that if we follow this approach, any vote on a travel
policy that provides possible funding for all Councilors would create a
conflict for everyone who plans to request travel funds.  Because a
majority of Councilors may fit that category, we would never be able to
achieve a majority if they all abstained. Also, the decision would then
be left to those who are not going to request the funds, which I am not
sure is fair.

I personally think that we should try to get more information about what
the actual need may be so that we know what we are actually dealing
with.  In the case of the RyC, we have one Council seat that will be up
for election.  Assuming that my seat and Edmon's are left in tack, that
means that we have the possibility of having either three or four people
affected by this motion; three if Jordi is re-elected; four if a new
person is selected to fill his seat.  I for one will not be requesting
travel funds and I will check with Edmon and Jordi.

Rob - would you please resend the analysis that was done regarding
Council seats that shows which seats are termed out, which ones are
continuing, etc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:00 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Additional topic and motion for this 
> weeks agenda
> Avri,
> I propose that if and when this motion is made that all 
> Councillors that may not be continuing on the new Council due 
> to the reorganisation abstain from voting as they are 
> significantly conflicted. That is; they are effectively 
> voting for their own free trip to ICANN.
> Thanks.
> Adrian Kinderis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 2:31 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Additional topic and motion for this weeks agenda
> Hi,
> Since I was not able to send the proposed letter on increased 
> travel support due to the absence of consensus, I have added 
> it as an AOB topic to the agenda and have included a possible 
> motion.  Since this letter has been on the table and list for 
> consensus consideration for over 2 weeks, I hope that it is 
> acceptable to put it forward for this week's meeting.
> the motion (as yet not made or seconded):
> Motion made by:
> Seconded by:
> Whereas:
> The plan is to seat the new council in Seoul,
> and current council members may not longer be council members 
> at that time
> Resolved:
> Send the following letter:
> Letter to Kevin Wilson,
> I have been mandated by the GNSO council, by a vote of XX to 
> YY, to request support not only for the members of the new 
> bi-cameral council to be seated at Seoul, but also for those 
> current council members who may not be continuing on the new 
> council due to the reorganization.
> The reason this request is being made is to provide 
> continuity to the GNSO council at this time of restructuring, 
> reorganization and 'improvement.'
> Thank you
> Avri Doria
> for the GNSO Council
> --
> thanks
> a.