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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

thoughts?

6 is baldy worded!

I wish i had caught that use of 'always'  it is a bad idea.

a.

On 31 Mar 2010, at 14:33, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 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.
> 
>