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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Ok,

While I think that goes against what had been suggested by the SIC:

"With the sole exceptions of those cases where General Counsel advises  
that a particular policy rule should be moved to the Bylaws, all  
policy rules should be specified at the Rules and Procedures level.  
Notwithstanding, the Bylaws should include voting thresholds for  
Policy Development, which would cover the main contractual concerns."
I suppose that can be what the council recommends.


Personally, I don't think it matters whether things are in the  
Operating Rules and Procedure of the B-laws except for those things  
that impinge on contractual conditions, i.e. i agree with the SIC on  
this one, but if the this group agrees with you then that is what  
should be in the motion.
Can you suggest the wording you believe belongs there?

a.


On 9 Jun 2009, at 20:09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I believe that all voting thresholds should be in the Bylaws because
> they are fundamental to the design of the bicameral structure.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:42 PM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> >
> >
> > 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.