RE: [council] motion to waive rules

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

That is fine with me, but I think in the future that the NC should look at
their rules and allow for these sort of email votes without necessarily
having to have NC calls (except perhaps in the case of actual elections)
This was a request to change one of our procedural rules and I believe it
failed (assuming abstentions count as nos).  As the presenter of the motion,
I have no problem with the email vote.  Email is a very streamlined process
that also benefits those in time zones in which our calls are inconvenient.
We are all busy people and I think the more we can use email as a tool, the
better it is for everyone.  

As my new IPC reps are now on board, this is my last "two cents".  The last
three years have been quite a ride, and I wish you all the best as you move
forward.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:23 AM
To: DNSO Secretariat; council@dnso.org
Cc: Louis Touton
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 The request for nominations for the Names Council Chair is withdrawn.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
>
>