Re: [council] motion to waive rules

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

I agree.

J. Scott Evans - IPC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
To: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>; <council@dnso.org>
Cc: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [council] motion to waive rules


> Fellow Council members.
>
> In order to keep the calendar on track here and facilitate the nomination
> process for Names Council Chair, i would request that the Chairman call a
> special teleconference meeting of the council to "formally ratify"  the
> recent vote...
>
> This procedure would be consistant with the procedures outline by Louis
> which have been used by the Names Council for Icann Board Elections.
>
> Ken Stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:27 AM
> Subject: [council] motion to waive rules
>
>
> > Dear Council Members,
> >
> > The request for nominations for the Names Council Chair is withdrawn.
> >
> > May I draw your attention to the correspondence below with Louis Touton.
> >
> > Glen
> > DNSO Secretariat
> >
> >
> > Dear Glen,
> >
> > Thank you for your inquiry.
> >
> > Under the ICANN bylaws (Art. VI-B, Section 2), the Names Council takes
> > formal action by voting at meetings.  Section 2(h) describes the
> > requirements for meetings; these require either an in-person meeting, a
> > telephonic meeting, or other electronic means where "all members of the
> > NC participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another".
> >
> > This means that the Names Council may not formally act through a vote
> > conducted by e-mail alone.  E-mail votes are often helpful to the Names
> > Council's decisionmaking process, but must be viewed as informal
> > indications of sentiment.  In other contexts (such as the Names
> > Council's selection of ICANN Board members), the Names Council has in
> > the past conducted a series of e-mail votes and then formally ratified
> > the result at a telephone meeting.
> >
> > In view of the informal status of e-mail votes, the situation you
> > present with the 10-9-1 vote count is not directly relevant to the
> > effect of the vote.  In all events, any vote would have to be repeated
> > at a Names Council meeting to be formally effective on the question of
> > whether Section 1.1 of the rules should be waived.
> >
> > If a formal vote is taken at a Names Council meeting, and the result is
> > again 10-9-1, then the measure (i.e. the temporary waiver) will not have
> > been adopted.  There is, of course, the possibility that the vote at the
> > meeting may differ from the e-mail vote count.
> >
> > I hope this guidance is helpful to you and the Names Council in deciding
> > how to proceed.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Louis Touton
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: NC vote to waive procedure rules
> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:55:50 +0100
> > From: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>
> > To: <touton@icann.org>
> >
> >
> > Dear Louis,
> >
> > I would be most grateful if you could please give me your opinion on
> > this
> > matter.
> >
> > The Names Council has just finished a vote:
> >
> >     to waive the current NC Rules of Procedure,
> >     as published in:
> >       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v4.0.html
> >
> >       Solely for the purposes of the Names Council Chair election
> >       taking place on February 14, 2002, the Names Council moves
> >       to waive the provision of Section 1.1 of the Rules of Procedure
> >       for the DNSO which prohibits a retiring Names Council Chair
> >       from running for re-election for a period of one year.
> >
> >     The result have been published as follows:
> >
> >       The motion is adopted by 10 in favour, 9 against, 1 abstain.
> >
> >       One (1) person did not cast a vote.
> >
> >
> > The NC Rules of Procedure state:
> >
> > "2.2 Voting. In compliance with by-law VI-B 2(h), voting will be
> > simple majority vote. To pass a motion must attain a majority of the
> > votes cast. Abstentions count as votes cast. This has the effect of
> > making an abstention count the same as a vote against."
> >
> > If the vote is evenly split, a majority does not exist.
> >
> > I would very much appreciate your legal opinion on this.
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> >
> > Glen
> > DNSO Secretariat
> >
> >
>
>