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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think we should have a cleaned merged copy of the by-laws we are  
scheduled to vote on by Wednesday, I have included both the redline  
version of the merged version and a pdf where the redline is not  
showing.

We will have 2 brief sessions in Sydney on the weekend where we can  
confirm the wording, but I believe it would be better to have pretty  
much reached (near) consenus on the text we vote on before then.


a.

Attachment: GNSO-Bylaws-2009-06-13-merged-redline.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: GNSO-Bylaws-2009-06-13-merged.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

On 14 Jun 2009, at 02:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.