[gnso-osc-ops] RE: Action Required: Voting & Abstentions

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think we should modify the document to redact the names as not material to
the purpose prior to any broader distribution.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:36 AM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Action Required: Voting & Abstentions

 

Ray & GCOT Members:

 

The material contained in the 2009 abstentions analysis document was
extracted from http://gnso.icann.org (Master Calendar ? Minutes).  It is
publicly accessible and not protected in any way that I can discern.  

 

Opinion:  one reason that the team may wish to consider redacting the names
is that they are not germane to the purpose of the analysis.    We were
hoping to confirm that 2009?s actual abstentions would have been handled
properly in the new procedures and, to accomplish that objective, we need
only the recorded reason for the abstention.  It is not especially important
who registered the abstention and, if that information is disclosed, it
might tend to distract readers who have recollections of the events or may
think it important to explain/defend a particular decision.   Our goal is
solely to validate the new procedures rather than pass judgment on prior
actions that occurred, legitimately, under a previous framework.  

 

Ken Bour

 

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:10 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Required: Voting & Abstentions

 

That?s a good point Wolf.  Ken, can you confirm the voting by individual is
indeed public information?  I think so, but a good question to make sure of.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:19 AM
To: ray@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Required: Voting & Abstentions

 

Ray,

 

I support starting the OSC/Council process as suggested. However I have some
doubts whether we should disclose the names of councillors having abstained
in 2009. If the voting results are anyway publicly available then I would
agree.

 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG
Head Office T-Home
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140, 53113 Bonn, Germany
+49 2244 873999 (Phone)
+49 2244 873955 (Fax)
+49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile)
E-Mail: knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx
www.telekom.com 

Life is for sharing. 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG
Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman)
Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman),
Hamid Akhavan, Dr. Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme,
Timotheus Höttges, Guido Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger
Commercial register: Local court Bonn HRB 6794
Registered office: Bonn
WEEE reg. no. DE50478376

 

 

 


  _____  


Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Ray Fassett
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 21:43
An: 'gnso-osc-ops'
Cc: 'Ken Bour'; 'Robert Hoggarth'; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Required: Voting & Abstentions

Work Team members:  Per my instructions, Ken has provided to me a detailed
analysis leading to the final language for Section 4.5 Abstentions for
approval by the Work Team to send to the OSC for its review.  You will find
this document attached which includes the entire Section 4 (Voting) for your
review of Section 4.5 (Abstentions) in full context.  In addition, Ken
looked at each Councilor Abstention in 2009 to understand the how the rules
contained in Section 4.5 would have impacted the abstention at the time.
Very interesting and useful analysis.  I have attached this document for you
as well.  My request is for you to review these documents and if acceptable
to you, I will forward to the OSC for their review/comment but also with our
recommendation to send to the Council for its review as part the upcoming
Nairobi meeting.

 

Ken also provided to me a series of other documents that track the changes
from what we submitted for legal review and where the final abstention
language landed.  If you would like these documents, I can provide to you.

 

Lastly, Ken took a stab at drafting a sample Council resolution towards
approving Section 4.5 into the Rules of Procedure that I would recommend we
send to the OSC for consideration as well.  In summary, I am seeking Work
Team approval to send to the OSC the 2 documents attached and the sample
resolution language below.  Please let me know if you approve my doing so.

 

SAMPLE COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

 

WHEREAS the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) has developed a set of
abstention provisions that it recommends be incorporated into the GNSO
Operations Procedures as Sub-Section 4.5 (part of 4.0-Voting); and

 

WHEREAS the GCOT has also identified other voting procedures within Section
4.0 that it recommends be amended to be consistent with its proposed
abstentions provisions; and 

 

WHEREAS the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) has reviewed all of these
revisions and recommends them for adoption by the GNSO Council. 

 

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts Version ___ (TBD) of the GNSO
Operating Procedures, including the recommended revisions to Section 4 and
its new Sub-Section 4.5. 

 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to post this document
for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum and reserves the
right to modify these procedures upon conclusion of that public comment
period.