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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why does the procedure need to be referred to at all here? 
There is no mention of the procedure that the NomCom uses
to select the NCAs in the current bylaws. The revision
should just say something like:

"One Nomcom Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each
House."

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, June 09, 2009 11:41 am
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx


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.
>
>