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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Raimundo for the timely clarification.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Raimundo Beca
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:45 PM
> To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> Avri:
> 
> If I may, the SIC Feedback states that the PDP thresholds 
> should be in the Bylaws. However, it doesn't state that other 
> thresolds shouldn't also be in the Bylaws.
> 
> Regards, Raimundo   
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Enviado el: martes, 09 de junio de 2009 14:21
> Para: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>