[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action re: Proxy Voting Procedure

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri and SCI members,

With respect to this action item from the notes:

>5. Continuing discussion (and suggested solutions) on
>       - Proxy Voting Procedure
>         Proposed: no change to procedure, request new method for
>                             notification of both Secretariat and Council
> Seems to be general agreement to talking to staff about making the
>process less labor intensive for the secretariat and to allow for
>notification up to the > > beginning of the meeting.  There does not seem
>to be any agreement for changing the rules at this time.

I can confirm that it is possible to have the notification go to more than
one email, that is, to both the Secretariat and the Council at the same
time that the form is submitted.  If this is what the SCI agrees to do,
we'll initiate the change with our technical staff.

Best regards,

Julie



On 7/12/12 4:14 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Some notes from the meeting. Please add/correct etc.
>
>avri
>
>
>
>On 10 Jul 2012, at 15:55, Marika Konings wrote:
>
>> 
>> Proposed Agenda ­ SCI Meeting ­ 12 July 2012
>> 
>> 1. Roll call
>> 2. Statement of Interests
>> 3. Approval of the agenda
>> 4. Status update on community review
>>   -  consent agenda & the GNSO Council Voting Results
>
>Julie took us through the open review.  As there are no comments yet, we
>moved on to the next item
>
>> 5. Continuing discussion (and suggested solutions) on
>>       - Proxy Voting Procedure
>>         Proposed: no change to procedure, request new method for
>>                             notification of both Secretariat and Council
>
>Seems to be general agreement to talking to staff about making the
>process less labor intensive for the secretariat and to allow for
>notification up to the beginning of the meeting.  There does not seem to
>be any agreement for changing the rules at this time.
>
>
>>       - Deferral of Motions
>>         Update on team work
>
>There was a discussion of the work in the wiki pages.  As a possible
>solution might involve crafting some definitions to mark the difference
>between a delay or change to the chartered timeline and an indefinite
>delay or suspension,  Margie offered that she and Marika will look into
>suggesting some language.
>
>>       - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>>         Update on Team Work
>
>We need to first resolve the  question: do we want to leave it as a
>process and monitor for a year or to formalize a rule?  A question that
>was asked during the meeting was if we decide to leave it as a process
>and monitor for the next year, what would we be monitoring, and what
>would mark significant data.  After this discussion, and if the group
>decides to formalize, we need to have further discussions on how to do so
>- there are lots of variations currently proposed.
>
>Those who support leaving it as and monitoring are asked to add
>information of what would be monitored and the significance of that
>monitoring.
>
>> 6. Raising an issue -
>>      Has this been sufficiently clarified - currently needs to come from
>>      g-council or from a WG
>
>It became apparent that the issue had not been sufficiently clarified.
>While we seem to agree on the interpretation of our charter that issues
>get to the SCI in the following way:
>
>1. the g-council sent the issue
>2. a WG brought the issue
>3. an issue came up during a periodic review by the SCI of a process.
>
>What remains a question, however:
>
>- Was this intent of the council in creating the charter
>- Does it make sense that WG can come directly to SCI when SGs & Cs
>can't.  
>- What does it mean if the g-council objects to review of an item one
>SG/C thinks is a problem
>- Does it make sense that as manager of the policy process, the g-council
>does not have to approve both SG/C issues and WG issues before they are
>discussed in SCI
>
>Mary, with the assistance of J. Scott will create a draft letter to the
>g-council with these and perhaps other questions to be reviewed at the
>next meting.
>
>> 7. Status update on Working Group survey
>
>SCI members to review before the next meeting.
>
>
>> 8. AOB
>
>