ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-restruc-dt]


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

RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Fwd: Text of GNSO recommended by-laws

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Fwd: Text of GNSO recommended by-laws
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:26:14 -0400

I am okay if you integrate their changes but I think it would be helpful
if the redlining was maintained and their comments were kept so that it
is clear to all what changes came from them.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:11 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Fwd: Text of GNSO recommended by-laws
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> do you mean by this, that I should not integrate their changes?
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> On 13 Jun 2009, at 15:33, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I think it would be a good idea to distribute the redlined document 
> > with Legal Counsel's changes.
> >
> > Regarding: "5. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair 
> for a term 
> > the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year, 
> by written 
> > ballot or by action at a meeting or both. The procedures 
> for selecting 
> > the Chair and any other officers are contained in the GNSO Council 
> > Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board." (p.3)
> >
> > Legal Counsel made this comment: "The inclusion of "both" 
> confuses the 
> > requirements - what is trying to be achieved here?  It may 
> be better 
> > to remove "or both" unless we can reach a better 
> formulation of this."  
> > I think one thing we were trying to accommodate is absentee voting.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:15 AM
> >> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: Avri Doria
> >> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Fwd: Text of GNSO recommended by-laws
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As the note below indicates, I asked the Legal Counsel to 
> take a look 
> >> at the draft by-laws.
> >>
> >> Several edits have been made.  Please review and comment.
> >>
> >> My inclination is to insert their changes unless there is 
> objection.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> a.
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> Avri,
> >>>
> >>> Samantha Eisner and I have reviewed the GNSO's draft bylaws 
> >>> amendments.
> >>> Please find attached a Word document with our comments,
> >> questions, and
> >>> suggested edits.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the opportunity to review this.  Please let
> >> us know if
> >>> you have any questions or if we can be of any other assistance.
> >>>
> >>> See you in Sydney!
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10-Jun-09 07:05, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand that you were doing a review of the by-laws when we 
> >>>> started mucking about.  I think we are just about finished
> >> and though
> >>>> they have not been council approved yet (hope to do it in
> >> Sydney), I
> >>>> think they are rather stable at this point.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be great if you could take a look and let us know if 
> >>>> anything we have there is inappropriate vis a vis legal
> >> requirements,
> >>>> or if anything is missing.  The sooner we know, the 
> sooner we can 
> >>>> deal with any changes.  Of course I understand that the
> >> real review
> >>>> will be done before the Board takes its vote, however, 
> it would be 
> >>>> helpful to know if we really missed the mark anywhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> The latest version can be found at:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
> >>>>
> >>>> As of tomorrow morning I epxect to remove the editing
> >> marks (italics
> >>>> for recently added changes, line through for things that 
> are to be 
> >>>> deleted).
> >>>>
> >>>> You will note that we have not touched the PDP annex 
> yet.  That is
> >>>> being worked on in the PPSC.   Except for the voting
> >> thresholds which
> >>>> are included in the changes, I think we should be ok as
> >> the PDP rules
> >>>> do not affect getting the new council seated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please forgive the parallelism and extra work that it may
> >> entail, but
> >>>> I am really trying to make sure everything gets done in
> >> time to seat
> >>>> the new council in Seoul.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> and look forward to seeing you in Sydney.
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> 




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy