ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [bc-gnso] Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes

  • To: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes
  • From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:24:01 -0400

This is indeed distressing. When I was a councilor, long ago and far away now, 
under a different chair, thus a different 'ethic', we had a discussion about 
requiring enough representation from the Council to have a quorum, that wasn't 
just about numbers, but was also about representation from different 
constituencies. This looks like it clearly wasn't 'representative' but there 
was representation from IPC, Ry, RC, NCUC, and NomComm; thus four of the six... 
plus NomComm, so in fact, it was 'representative' in terms of constituencies. 
but it is surprising that all councilors were absent from ISPs and BC. 

From: lizawilliams@xxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fwd: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO 
Council vote on Recommended By Laws changes
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:43:53 +0100

How is it possible that all of our BC Councillors (and many others) were absent 
for this important vote and that this motion is able to go forward?  Of course 
I understand weighted voting but this doesn't seem right?
What are the implication of this?
Liz Williams+44 1963 364 380+44 7824 877757
Begin forwarded message:From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>Date: 15 July 2009 
05:27:13 BSTTo: secretary@xxxxxxxxx, Peter Dengate Thrush 
<barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, 
gnso-council-draft@icann.orgCc: gnso-restruc-dt@icann.orgSubject: 
[gnso-restruc-dt] Notification of results in GNSO Council vote on Recommended 
By Laws changes

To the Board;

This constitutes formal notification to the Board, to the Structural 
Improvements Committee of the Board and to the Public Comments area, on the 
motion concerning the recommended By Laws changes in support of GNSO 
restructuring as mandated by the Board.

Avri Doria
Chair, GNSO Council


By-Law Changes Motion proposed by Avri Doria and seconded by Chuck Gomes


On 28 August 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the BGC plan to 
restructuring of the GNSO; and

On 27 March 2009 the ICANN Policy Staff introduced a draft of proposed by-law 
changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO; and

Subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN Policy Staff, the 
GNSO Council decided to create a Committee of the Whole to work on a proposed 
set of changes to the By-laws which committee was open to council members as 
well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant 
constituencies; and

On 8 June 2009 the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board Directors 
gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO Committee of the 
Whole; and

On 12 June 2009, the ICANN legal counsel gave a set of recommend edits to the 
GNSO Committee of the whole.


The GNSO recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that the By-laws related to 
the GNSO council be amended to read as documented in: 

The Motion passed.

12 Votes in favour:
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (Registrar constituency), Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon 
Chung, Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries constituency) (two votes each)
Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee Appointees)(one vote each)

3 Abstentions: William Drake, Carlos Souza (Non-Commercial Users Constituency), 
Kristina Rosette (Intellectual Property Constituency).

1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (Intellectual Property Constituency).

Absent Council members: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil 
(Commercial and Business Users Constituency), Ute Decker (Intellectual Property 
Constituency), Tony Holmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth (Internet Service and 
Connectivity Providers Constituency),  Mary Wong (Non-Commercial Users 
Constituency), Terry Davis (Nominating Committee Appointees), Stéphane van 
Gelder (Registrar constituency).

Kristina Rosette: Reason for abstention:
It is inappropriate for there to be a vote on the by-laws until we have a 
resolution of the allocation of Board seats 13 and 14 as well as the absence of 
language pertaining to the temporary transitional allocation of the six seats 
in the NCSG.

Bill Drake: Reason for abstention:
Reason for abstention:
I abstain because the document is not done and we are waiting for clarification 
of some closely linked issues that will affect our participation in the new GNSO

Carlos Souza: Reason for abstaining:
I understand that the wording regarding the NCSG seats have been changed and we 
do not have the blank space at the end of the clause as it was presented in 
Sydney. However, there are some issues that require further input and the 
document as today is still incomplete on that regard.

Posted by:
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

Additional notes:

I. The vote was originally scheduled for 24 June 2009, but held over at the 
request of several constituencies.  It has been GNSO Council practice to 
postpone a vote for one (1) meeting when a constituency asks for more time for 
considering the motion within the constituency.

II. The meeting for the vote was originally scheduled for 2 July 2009, but was 
postposed until 9 July 2009 at a council meeting on 25 June 2009.  There were 
no recorded objections to the scheduling of the meeting for that date.

III. The decision described above, was made according to the ByLaws currently 
in effect:

X.3.9.b. Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of  votes of 
GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum  for the 
transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the  GNSO Council 
members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum  shall be acts of the 
GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein.
(See Section 5(2) of this Article concerning the number of votes  that  GNSO 
Council members may cast.)

IV. The absentee ballot rule was not put in to effect due to consultation with 
Legal Counsel that indicated  that this was neither a Policy Process vote nor 
an Election, and those are the only two occasions where the absentee ballot is 

V. The Commercial and Business Users Constituency, endorsed by the Intellectual 
Property Constituency and the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers 
Constituency, formally requested that the following information be included in 
the formal notification of the vote:

1. Of the 21 members of Council, 7 members voted in favour.
2. Of the 6 GNSO Constituencies, only 2 voted in favour.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy