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

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron and GCOT Members:

 

In response to Ron's inquiry about closing all remaining items on 19 May, I
believe that is precisely what Ray hoped to accomplish.   The only open
issues that I know about are those in Chapter 4.0 and, more specifically, in
Section 4.5-Abstentions per my 6 May revisions.   Section 3.8 (Absences &
Vacancies) is already clean although we should hold it until we are
satisfied with Chapter 4.0.   

 

To the extent that the team can finalize Section 4.5 in the next week and a
half (Ray and Ron have provided feedback thus far), from Staff's
perspective, I see no reason why the two remaining docs could not be
approved on 19 May and forwarded to the OSC later that afternoon if not the
next day.   I will continue to monitor the email list and, as we approach 19
May, I will produce the cleanest version that is possible given the comments
received at that point.   Hopefully, that will facilitate any final
decisions that need to be made on the 19th. 

 

Regarding the OSC, please keep in mind it has already reviewed Chapter 4.0
(especially 4.5-Abstentions) during Nairobi and did, in fact, send it back
to the GCOT for revisions -- all of which have been accommodated (e.g.
permitting reasons for Y/N votes in addition to abstain; TA remedy for
vacancies).   Unless there are entirely new areas of concern identified, we
should not anticipate pushback from the OSC although the GNSO Council, of
course, could raise new issues...  

 

Ken Bour

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 4:00 PM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Chapter 4 and Section 3.8

 

Dear all,

 

Having read through the changes I don't see anything that I am uncomfortable
with and applaud the refinements made.  One thought that does go through my
mind that I believe I read in one of Ray's recent postings about June 1st
being a cut-off date, is that we should try to accelerate that.  My
reasoning is that giving any documentation to the OSC with such a short
run-up to Brussels - in light of DAG 4 coming out very near that time -
could cause an unnecessary bottleneck.  Worse, if the OSC has any issues
with our docs, they could push them back for further work on our part,
thereby not allowing us to wrap up this work team by Brussels as has been
anticipated.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but can we not close out all
the open issues on our next call (May 19th)?

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

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