ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-restruc-dt]


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

Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.

  • To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:41:46 +0200


Hi,

some more questions and comments inline.

thanks

a.



On 9 Jun 2009, at 18:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:



Item 1.e in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATION; SECTION
3. GNSO COUNCIL' says, "One Nomcom Appointee voting representative
shall be assigned to each House subject to a selection procedure
defined elsewhere in these by-laws."  Is that procedure going to be
defined in the Bylaws?  I thought it was going to be defined by the
NomCom but maybe I misunderstood the SIC response.

yes and no.

for the transition, how it is done will be defined by the board.
after that by the nomcom.

later in the by-laws (x8), the specifics are made clear
regarding the long term on the transition, we tried to change
it yesterday, but we could not find the words and figured
that the board would decide what went there when they were ready.
so i think this is covered for now.

Chuck: One thing it seems to me we do not know is whether it will be
defined in the Bylaws or elsewhere. One thing we could do is delete "in
these Bylaws" and leave the first sentence as "One Nomcom Appointee
voting representative shall be assigned to each House subject to a
selection procedure defined elsewhere." I am comfortable with whatever
you decide.


i have drawn a line though the phrase in an updated version.
what do others think?






Also in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION;
SECTION 3.
GNSO COUNCIL', the last paragraph says, "Except as
otherwise specified
in the Transition Article XX, Section 5 (link TBD) or Annex
A of these
Bylaws (link TBD), all bicameral house voting thresholds
required to
pass a GNSO Council motion or other action are prescribed
in the GNSO
Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board."  I
thought we had agreed to include the voting thresholds in
the Bylaws
and my understanding is that the SIC said the same thing.
Shouldn't
we had the voting thresholds to this section with the changes I
mention in the last paragraph below?

They would belong in Annex A.  which i thought we are not
amending until the PDP group finishes its work.

Chuck: My objection is that the clause says, "all bicameral house voting
thresholds required to pass a GNSO Council motion or other action are
prescribed in the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures".  We
agreed that they would be defined in the Bylaws. Whether that happens
now or later after the PDP WG finishes is less significant than the fact
that we state they will be in Rules.  We should at least say "all
bicameral house voting thresholds required to pass a GNSO Council motion
or other action will be prescribed in the Bylaws."

Except that that sentence already starts:
"Except as otherwise specified in the Transition Article XX, Section 5 (link TBD) or Annex A of these Bylaws (link TBD).."

what I am trying to understand is whether you are saying that we should put all all voting thresholds in the by-laws, even though SIC appears to be answered that they should be in ORP except as required by legal.





in the meantime we say:

"Except as otherwise specified in the Transition Article XX,
Section 5 (link TBD) or Annex A of these Bylaws (link TBD),
all bicameral house voting thresholds required to pass a GNSO
Council motion or other action are prescribed in the GNSO
Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board."

Does that cover it?

Chuck: Only with the change I stated above. This is needed too.






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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy