RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Chapter 4 and Section 3.8

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

KAB1: "It occurred to me that someone might wonder whether remedies can be
stacked.  I offer for GCOT consideration that perhaps a TA, when temporarily
replacing a Councilor's position, he/she could also serve as a proxy;
however, when the TA remedy is applied for reason of abstention (vote
specific), he/she could not also serve as a proxy. "

 

Ray: Agree to your new Section 4.5.3-c(iii)wording.

 

KAB2: "In reconsidering this clause, I think it could be disastrous for the
Secretariat if a remedy were to be announced just prior to a vote being
taken or, worse yet, in the middle of a vote!  It seems as though any
abstention remedy should be documented in time for the Secretariat to handle
it without surprise or disruption to the meeting agenda."

Ray: Agree to your new Section 4.5.4-b (last paragraph) wording.

Procedurally, I propose that all comments be submitted by COB May 18 in
preparation for our scheduled teleconference meeting the next day. 

Ray

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:28 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Chapter 4 and Section 3.8

 

GCOT Members:

 

As a result of yesterday's teleconference and helpful guidance provided by
team members present, I have developed revisions for both Chapter 4.0-Voting
and Section 3.8-Absenses and Vacancies.   

 

I also attached a new version of Chapter 1.0 (extracted from the complete
GOP v1.3) to show you how I thought we might handle the definition of
"appointing organization" at the top of the document.   I am not
recommending that the GCOT submit Chapter 1.0 as a work product to the OSC
(Staff can make this recommendation as part of its GOP continuity work);
however, I wanted the team to review my suggested method of handling
definitions.   The structure I have proposed would allow any number of
additional definitions to be added as they are identified.  

 

Change Log:

 

1)      Section 3.8

*        Removed the comment about "appointing organization" which is now
handled in Section 1.3.1 (see attached); otherwise, this section is clean
and, I believe, there are no additional issues for team resolution.   

NOTE:  I do recommend that Section 3.8 be forward to the OSC in a package
with Chapter 4.0 because of the cross-references between them.  

2)      Chapter 4.0

*        Section 4.5.3-a:  replaced the term "consensus" with:  

"This remedy requires that the appointing organization establish an
affirmative or negative voting position, subject to provisions contained in
its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable Council measure/motion."

*        Section 4.5.3-b(i):  similar replacement for the term "consensus"

*        Section 4.5.3-c(iii):  new language that the team has not
discussed, but I recommend be added.  I included a comment to explain my
rationale for this change subject to GCOT approval. 

*        Section 4.5.4-b:  after re-reading the first sentence, and in light
of previous GCOT discussions and decisions, I thought that it should be
reworded to emphasize the appointing organization's option to invoke a
remedy (at its discretion) vs. having any obligation to do so.  

*        Section 4.5.4-b (Bullet #6):  replaced the term "consensus"
consistent with earlier changes

*        Section 4.5.4-b (last paragraph):  after re-reading and thinking
about the logistics, it seems as though it could be terribly disruptive to
allow a remedy (of any flavor) to be interjected AFTER a Council meeting has
already started.   The original language would have permitted a remedy to
sneak in WHILE a vote was being tallied -- even during an absentee balloting
period!  In respect of the Chair's and Secretariat's administrative
responsibilities, I would recommend that the procedures for any remedy be
completed BEFORE the start of the Council meeting in which it will be
exercised.   In my opinion, this altered provision merely serves to place
additional burden on abstaining Councilors to notify their appointing
organizations as far in advance as possible to give everyone sufficient time
to complete the notifications/communications in an orderly fashion.  

I stand ready to finalize these and any other changes that the GCOT
recommends.   It would be ideal if the team could make progress on these
amendments in the intervening two weeks before the next meeting.   That
could give us enough time to produce a CLEAN version of Chapter 4.0
(primarily Section 4.5) that could be reviewed and, hopefully, approved for
forwarding to the OSC on 19 May.  

I will also begin working on the OSC Executive Summary which, I believe,
needs to be refreshed and updated for certain changes made as a result of
the OSC's feedback during Nairobi.   

Ken Bour