ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Waivers of GNSO operating procedures

  • To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Waivers of GNSO operating procedures
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:46:54 -0600

there's nothing like an upcoming meeting to focus the mind.  i too would like 
to apologize for this last-minute post.  Marie-Laure was all over this and i…  
um…  wasn't.  sorry about that.

anyway, here's a summary of the email thread between Marie-Laure and me.  i 
agree with Marie, it would be helpful to sharpen up the problem-statement a bit 
before we dive into describing the solution.


The request:

Waivers and/or Exceptions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures

Which group do you represent? GNSO Council

To which rules or processes do you refer? Submitting a motion and possibly 
other procedures

Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to waive or 
invoke an exception to and of its operating procedures.  An example is whether 
the deadline for submitting motions could be waived in certain circumstances.  
Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban 
on 18 July 2013: "And essentially I wasn’t empowered as chair by our rulebook 
to allow that motion to be put on the table even if technically although we 
have done it by precedent and prior practice, even if no one objected from the 
council I didn’t really - there isn’t really device in the rulebook to allow 
that to take place. So I personally I think that’s an area we should look at is 
the - when and under what circumstances - formal council procedure can be 
bypassed in the event that there is no objection from the council?"

What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems?  The 
SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting 
and under what circumstances.

Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to 
administer? A waiver mechanism could allow the Council to consider a motion or 
document after the deadline of notice/submission to the Council has passed.

A suggestion from Thomas Rickert

Preferred path:
Ask for the waiver if all councillors are present or represented. If waivers 
are granted, record them.
That is the safest option.

Alternate route in case not all councillors are present or represented:
Ask whether councillors object - if someone objects - end of story
If noone objects, go on record advising absent councillors to object to the 
Council leadership should they wish to do so.

Marie-Laure's comments:

Thomas proposal seems reasonable. I would add the following:

-In both scenarios, it would be pertinent to specify whether the waiver has to 
be given orally or in a written form (email);
-Scenario 2 (all councillors are not present) specify a deadline (maybe one or 
two weeks) when councillors who were not present are requested to object. 
-Scenario 2, specify that silence is interpreted as non-objection in case one 
of the councillors argue that they wanted to object but missed the emails where 
they were requested to object. 

-Key question that remain to be answered to : 
should  this waiver be unlimited in time ? I think it shouldn´t to avoid abuses 
but it  should at the same provide enough flexibility for the chair to address 
a particular issue with the councilors thus how can we reach a balance?
should the waiver be specific as to what t is meant for ie. it should clearly 
specify what it is for in other word it should not become a permission to 
bypass any procedures under any circumstances. 

But I have been reading the background information that Julie sent (copied and 
pastel below) and I am wondering whether we are working on the right problem. 
It seems that from the text below, the problem highlighted by Jonathan was that 
he did not need us to establish rules for how waivers can be used but rather 
establishing guidelines as to when and how procedural rules can be bypassed 
when there is a waiver/exception.  Which is quite different. 

Question for the group:

Marie-Laure has the nub of it.  what is the problem that the SCI is being asked 
to address?  some discussion around this would be really helpful on today's 



PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy