RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Re: GCOT Documents: Voting, Term Limits, and Absences

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, as I read #6 below again, it says that remedies should "always" be
permitted in the case of incidental absence.  I think this is true - that
remedies are always permitted.  The fact that whatever the cause of such
incidental absence may not make feasible exercising the prescribed remedies
already made available is a different issue.  It's simply not reasonable for
us to attempt to script every sort of remedy that could be exercised for
every possible future incidental reason, that we do not even know, in order
for a remedy to be available that is "always" feasible.  Simply put,
remedies are "always" available for cases of incidental absence.  Are they
"always" feasible to exercise for incidental absences?  Maybe not nor can we
promise otherwise...make sense?  Thoughts welcome.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:59 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Re: GCOT Documents: Voting, Term Limits, and
Absences


Ken,

Are these the GCOT imperative/postions or your?

some comments:
On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:28, Ken Bour wrote:

> Ray and GCOT Members:
>  
> I would like to step through a few considerations to be sure that we are
looking at this absentee voting matter holistically. 
>  
> 1)  Two key principles underlying the GCOT's Abstentions procedures are:
>             a.  SG/Cs should not lose opportunities to have votes cast by
their Council representatives
>             b.  Voting denominators should never change; therefore,
remedies should always be available

a. is covered by the principle that all council members should attend all
meetings and that the exception should be rare.

b. 'alwasy' is a strong word.  When was 'always' decided by this group?  i
just saw that several of us agree that 'always' is not the requirement,
using terms like legitimate reasons or dire circumstance.


>  
> 2)  The team went to great lengths to ensure that the above principles
could be honored for:
>             Volitional Abstentions
>            Obligational Abstentions
>             Absences (new Section 3.8)
>             Vacancies (raised by S. Metalitz in Nairobi and captured in
the revised Section 3.8)
>            

and isn't this far enough?  i think it goes too far now that you point it
out this way.
...

>  
> 6)  Abstentions and associated remedies are permitted for all cases of
incidental absence.  If not, then each time a Councilor is absent, his/her
vote would not be cast and the SG/C's opportunity would be lost -- violating
a key principle.

it is not a key principle for this group.  it may be for you, but i do not
believe the group has accepted it.  any argument that depends on this being
a key principle is therefore not valid in my view.  

...

a.