Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All --

This is a good discussion and I appreciate seeing it expand.

As a new vice chair of the council I can attest to the fact that council 
procedures are complex in places, but not too terribly hard to understand with 
a bit of study.  I wouldn't object to an orientation for new councilors if we 
believe that would be helpful to each other and the community; however, nor 
would I say it's absolutely necessary.  It's a reasonable expectation for new 
councilors to prepare themselves for their role.

With regard to motions: In general I agree that it should not be permissible to 
re-introduce a motion already voted down, either the exact wording or something 
substantially the same and designed to achieve the same outcome.  I don't know 
that this needs to be enshrined in procedure -- in the vote we're all 
referencing, I trust that Brian's situation was an honest error and not meant 
to disrupt council business.  In cases such as this I'm not opposed to 
re-entertaining a motion when it's clear the issue is a simple misunderstanding 
and not an attempt to game the rules or beat into submission those who disagree 
with the proponents.  I would hope councilors can discern between the two and 
honor good intentions.

I don't believe in general that this has been a problem for the council.  
Should it become one, I would agree with updating procedure in some manner, but 
I don't think we're there (and hope we never get there).

Mason


On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> 
> Strongly agree with these observations 
> 
> 
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:10 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The question of what is the SCI remit and what is not must always be 
> considered, but it should not be used as a tool to inhibit a broad discussion 
> around any issue that comes before us.  I don't think anyone on this 
> Committee is suggesting that we become a drafting team for the suggested 
> primer.  That is a matter to be taken up at Council level, in response to our 
> recommendations.
> 
> What is being said - and this goes to the point of Avri's post below - is 
> that training for new councilors is now an absolute must as ICANN matures.
> The SCI cannot and must not ignore the importance of getting this training 
> element enshrined in the GNSO Council best practices to educate and ensure 
> that future Councilors do not find themselves ignorant of the ground rules 
> that govern their actions.  This is even more important, as Avri notes below, 
> for NCA appointees.
> 
> I won't opine on Avri's comments as to why this has yet to be put in place, 
> but I do feel strongly that it is time to get this sorted once and for all.
> Therefore, I don't see any reason as to why the SCI should not make a 
> training/primer program for GNSO Councilors part of our recommendations to 
> Council in our response to the issue of re-voting a motion.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> RA
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> 
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:15 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Since I was first aded to the g-cpuncil way back when, people have talk about 
> training for new council members.  Glad to see that old ideas never die.
> 
> - I think it is out of scope for this group.  We are responsible for looking 
> at the rules themselves.  Not how a council members becomes educated in those 
> rules. 
> 
> - I am sure that too many council members would be too busy or too 
> intelligent to bother taking the course or learn anything from them.  they 
> are not that hard or long to read and the staff has done a good job of 
> creating information pieces.  Anyone who is smart enough to be on the council 
> can learn the rules if they wish to learn the rules.  Plus except for NCAs, 
> any new council member have the senior council members form their 
> Constituency/SG to epxlain things to them form their C/SG's perspective.
> 
> - there is a major education effort elsewhere in ICANN.  It is bogged down in 
> politics, because no one can agree on the content and the identity of the 
> teachers.  We do not trust each other enough to allow someone from the other 
> side, or even staff, to do the teaching.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an
> excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to.  Indeed, if all 
> new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that 
> they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various 
> constituencies well.  Moreover, a neutral presentation of 
> roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist 
> new councilors in learning how to find consensus.  Something we can all agree 
> has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the 
> years.
>> 
>> Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward.  Let's 
>> explore
> this further.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> Ronald N. Andruff
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, 
> Anne
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM
>> To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe
>> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx;
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a
> rule on quashing motions for reconsideration.  There may even be changed 
> circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to 
> make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought 
> before the Council again. 
>> 
>> I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer 
>> Councilor,
> laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might 
> not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance.  Maybe I am less critical 
> because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good 
> lawyer.  If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone 
> might be.  So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been 
> NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at 
> least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world).
>> 
>> There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as 
>> you
> would have others do unto you."  So it seems that if we say this is okay the 
> way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor 
> who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the 
> discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again.
>> 
>> The harder line would be:  "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for
> knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as 
> to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion."  If we go 
> this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly.  Do new 
> GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most 
> Boards?
>> Anne
>> 
>> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>> Of Counsel
>> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
>> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 
>> 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxx . 
>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
>> 
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information 
>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are 
>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
>> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication 
>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
> original message.
>> 
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM
>> To: Jen Wolfe
>> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx;
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> 
>> Thanks Jennifer,
>> 
>> Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a
> discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from 
> six sigma training... including myself!
>> 
>> Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements 
>> Implementation
> I discussions will lead too.
>> 
>> Cheers, Alain
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I hope your new year is  off to a great start.  I know I am new to the
> council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, 
> but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the 
> councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for 
> consensus.  A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying 
> questions and then wanted to change his vote.  From a strictly process 
> standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time 
> for discussion and clarifying questions close.  In any other parliamentary 
> procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is 
> taken, that's it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or 
> substantively.
>> 
>> I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes 
>> and
> a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it's a slippery 
> slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a 
> clarifying question after the vote was taken.  It not only takes up valuable 
> time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used 
> inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. 
>> 
>> I look forward to participating in this committee.  I have a black 
>> belt in
> six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function 
> more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this 
> committee. 
>> 
>> Have a great weekend!
>> 
>> JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB
>> MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADIVSORY 
>> FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN 
>> INTELLECTUAL
> PROPERTY LAW FIRM
>> IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: 
>> <image005.gif> <image006.gif> <image007.gif>
>> Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn't apply for a gTLD?
>> 
>> Book: Domain Names Rewired
>> 
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM
>> To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives
> believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven 
> organization.  
>> 
>> Please help me understand.
>> 
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> 
>> 
>> From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM
>> To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx;
> jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> 
>> 
>> I agree fully with Mary's arguments.
>> 
>> Best, Alain
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my
> view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted 
> on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in 
> the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar 
> circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation 
> to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. 
> effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a 
> Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of 
> circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in 
> substance is the same motion.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 
>> 03301 USA
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network 
>> (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>> 
>>>>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>
>> All,
>> 
>> My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how 
>> improvements
> may be made for the future.
>> 
>> When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not 
>> believe
> that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a 
> motion that had recently been voted on.
>> 
>> This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to 
>> guide us
> on this in future.  I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all.
>> 
>> We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look 
>> at
> as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the 
> example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: 09 January 2013 16:58
>> To: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> 
>> I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this
> specific instance:
>> 
>> - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on.
>> 
>> - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors 
>> were
> not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be 
> as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of 
> something that was properly introduced and voted on.
>> 
>> - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had
> given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, 
> the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and 
> if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to 
> discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, 
> one properly introduced, seconded and voted on).
>> 
>> - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and
> referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion 
> (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI 
> before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are 
> somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the 
> mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was 
> improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context 
> within which ICANN is operating.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 
>> 03301 USA
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network 
>> (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>> 
>>>>> Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>>
>> 
>> Another thought experiment.
>> 
>> There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG 
>> Policy
> Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, 
> some voters got confused and voted against.
>> 
>> Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? 
>> 
>> Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to 
>> just
> reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps 
> even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote?
>> 
>> A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency 
>> beleive
> that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have 
> a vote rescheduled at the next meeting?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can 
>>> be
> reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on 
> reconsideration in the ByLaws. 
>>> 
>>> One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that 
>>> one
> of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it 
> was the Chair who had been on the losing side.
>>> 
>>> We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I tend to agree,
>>>> 
>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>; Jeff Neuman 
>>>> <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" 
>>>> type
> inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a 
> motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how 
> obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to 
> discuss tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the 
>>>> GNSO
> Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide 
> prior to our call.
>>> 
>>> It is all in the g-counci Procedures.
>>> And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions
> already made.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you
>>>> Anne
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>>>> Of Counsel
>>>> Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>>>> One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 
>>>> 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxx * 
>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment 
>>>> before printing this e-mail.
>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential 
>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named within the 
>>>> message.
>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
>>>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are 
>>>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
>>>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication 
>>>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete 
>>>> the
> original message.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM
>>>> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I guess I do not support that.
>>>> 
>>>> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it
> back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have 
> past.
>>>> 
>>>> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for
> motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has 
> NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the 
> WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that 
>>>> should
> never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from 
> doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of 
> things that could go wrong, then we need new rules.
>>>> 
>>>> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an 
>>>> NCUC
> based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go 
> her way.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, 
>>>>> the
> spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two 
> votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some 
> evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did 
> not happen.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is 
>>>>> evidence
> of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>>>>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Robinson
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but 
>>>>> that is
> not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at 
> the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board 
> for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the 
> Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has 
> passed or not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the
> reality of the situation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not 
>>>>>> supposed
> to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on 
> items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given 
> policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making 
> the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and 
> reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the 
> Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not 
> supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the
> result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that 
> ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to 
> be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and 
> unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse 
> within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence 
> that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, 
> harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a 
> second measurement of consensus is not an issue.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxxx]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors 
>>>>>>> to
> vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two 
> remedies were possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case 
>>>>>> when it
> is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and 
> accountability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to
> make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my 
> stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should 
> be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, 
> those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was 
> confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have 
> been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it 
> had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes 
> unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
> www.lewisandroca.com.
>>>> 
>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 
>>>> Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley 
>>>> (650)391-1380
>>>> 
>>>> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or 
>>>> entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
> replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise 
>>>> you
> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended 
> or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose 
> of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca 
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership 
>> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet 
>> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, 
>> http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>> 
>> 
>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
>> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
> destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu'il lui est strictement interdit 
> de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
> ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
> été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et 
> détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive 
>> use
> of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone 
> other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
> forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
> distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
> part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail 
> in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
> copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca 
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership 
>> Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet 
>> Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, 
>> http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>> 
>> 
>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
>> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
> destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu'il lui est strictement interdit 
> de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
> ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
> été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et 
> détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive 
>> use
> of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone 
> other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
> forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
> distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
> part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail 
> in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
> copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>