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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 7 May 2010, at 18:20, Ken Bour wrote:

> (Ray and Ron have provided feedback thus far)

ok, now i have too, sorry I could not just say I was comfortable with the doc 
as is. for being finished with this task is a fond dream of mine as well

4.1.  One things we don't cover, i think, on quorum.  And if we did cover it I 
missed it and I don't see it in the procedures.

Current practice is that once quorum is established at a meeting, it remains, 
even if bunches of people leave.  Do we agree with this remaining the case?  It 
was questioned on occasion.  If we need to say something, then we can say 
something like: Once Quorum is established during a single meeting, that 
meeting can be assumed to be under quorum for the entire meeting.

Or we can say something about there needing to be a quorum determination before 
every vote.  

But we need to choose and need to be explicit.

4.4.4  Not a big deal, but this is redundant.  Since a vote cannot be initiated 
without a quorum, an absentee ballot can't be initiated either.

4.5.1 Just a marker on the use of the phrase 'appointing organization' as 
discussed.  Do you have the text that goes in the chapeau of the document?  
Would be good to see that text since I am not sure we had clear agreement on 
what it should say.

4.5.2-a  I have trouble parsing and understanding: 

>               • Unavoidable absence beyond the period allowed for absentee 
> voting (where applicable)

4.5.3 b ii  It should be made explicit that if the house by some yet undefined 
procedure reuses to give the non-voting NCA the proxy then there is no other 
remedy but that nonetheless the denominator won't change.  (I know this is 
mentioned in 4.5.4)

I still think, btw, that this is not a good solution. Not only are the houses 
not set up for such processes, but the house is likely to make this decision 
based on the politics of the situation - which could be oppositional between 
the SGs.  I think a better solution would be for the proxy to fall 
automatically, first on the non-voting NCA and if that NCA is not available on 
the other house's NCA.  It is my experience that NCA do talk to each other and 
do work together even if they don't coordinate positions.  

I think we are still mistaking the role of Houses, which as fictions intended 
for counting votes are not structural entities that can make decisions.   We 
have done this in other places, like the choosing of a vice-chair and the 
picking of a Board member, but these are relatively rare events that can afford 
the slow process that is House communications.  The abstention procedures could 
be more frequent and require something requiring real time.

I do not think it is new that I am saying I think this particular solution is a 
bad one. I will probably also be repeating this same concern about overloading 
House with functionality when this is reviewed in the OSC.  If we continue down 
this road then we are saying the each of the House will need to develop 
procedures etc  and will have bureaucratized another formal entity into the 
structure.  In some cases that will mean we have Silo-based constituencies, 
forming into SGs, forming into Houses, and each decision will require a process 
in all three of those entities.  Or are we saying that House will need to form 
bureaus of some sort to make these decisions?  I do not think we have paid 
enough attention to the consequences of the formalization of the House as a 
real political entity.  But perhaps this is an OSC/Council level topic.

4.5.4 b  I think the whole process is going to be a chore for the Secretariat 
with all of these written statements to be tracked.  But yes, assuming this 
process is adopted, there needs to be a deadline before the meeting by when 
such activities are complete.

a.