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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

thanks for the quick response.

a.

On 8 May 2010, at 11:44, Ken Bour wrote:

> GCOT Members:
>  
> Please see my thoughts (marked [KAB]) regarding Avri's comments to the latest 
> versions submitted on 6 May.
>  
> Ken Bour
>  
> [Snipped Header...]
>  
> > (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.
>  
> [KAB]  The current GOP language in 4.1-Quorum, approved in Seoul (original 
> GCOT recommendation), is explicit and reads, "In order for the GNSO Council 
> to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present."  My understanding is that the 
> Council is adhering to this provision.  The GCOT has not amended the quorum 
> definition as a result of its deliberations regarding abstentions.  If the 
> GCOT wishes to make a different recommendation concerning quorum, I am happy 
> to draft new language for this section.  

the meaning of 'must be present' can be argued.
present in the meeting when attendance is taken - no one really know who has 
left.
so does that mean attendance needs to be taken again?
and what is the consequence of someone leaving mid vote?  e.g. line gets 
dropped and they can't get back into the meeting - it happens.

so if this means that quorum needs checking before each vote we ought to be 
explicit to make sure it is clear. and may even need to cover what happens if 
quorum is lost in a meeting.

given the sometime politics of the gnso council, each of these points could be 
important at some point in a contentious vote.

>  
> 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.
>  
> [KAB]  Agreed.  Perhaps it would be more useful to note, "Absentee balloting 
> does not affect quorum requirements." 

sounds good.

>  
> 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.
>  
> [KAB]  I included an attachment (GOP v1.3-Chapter 1.0) containing that 
> language.  Please see the 2nd paragraph of my 6 May email to the GCOT list. 

thanks.  Had not read that email yet, was still working on this one.  that 
seems ok.

>  
> 4.5.2-a  I have trouble parsing and understanding:
>  
>    • Unavoidable absence beyond the period allowed for absentee voting (where 
> applicable)
>  
> [KAB]  That bullet was written at a very early stage of the team's work on 
> abstentions.  At this point, I think it should be removed.  Originally, it 
> was trying to convey that one type of "volitional" abstention could occur as 
> a result of an absence; however, we have since crafted Section 3.8 to deal 
> with absences, both planned and unplanned.  An absence does not automatically 
> result in an abstention.  If a Councilor is absent, but did not declare an 
> intention to abstain, any vote would be recorded as "Absent" (not Abstain) 
> and, of course, treated as a "No" vote.  If the team agrees, I recommend 
> adding the following sentence at the end of Section 3.8 to make this 
> treatment clear.
>  
> [PROPOSED]  3.8.5  Any occurrence of absence or vacancy that is not declared 
> in advance to result in an abstention from voting, as provided in this 
> section, will be recorded as “Absent” and such action will not reduce the 
> denominator in any vote tabulation for the affected House. 

ok with me.

>  
> 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.
>  
> [KAB]  I think Avri makes several excellent points and I have one more to 
> add.  Not only were Houses not conceived to be organizations with leadership 
> and voting capabilities to decide such matters (easily), the Non-Voting NCA 
> would also not be obligated to follow any House instruction since it is not, 
> strictly speaking, an "appointing organization."  As the procedures are 
> currently crafted, the only remedy available for an NCA is Proxy (TA and 
> Voting Direction do not apply).  Given the logistical complexities noted by 
> Avri, perhaps we should exclude abstention remedies for the two voting NCAs.  

I disagree.  i recommend it pass to another NCA.  it does not matter what the 
house thinks the NCA vote should be.  While only one is appointed to a house, 
we should acknowledge that they have all been picked by the nomcom and as such 
are an expression of the wider interests of the community.  They are supposed 
to be the wild card - as much as we folk in SGs hate wild cards.  And just as 
the SGs should not be denied their vote, so too should the community not be 
denied its vote.


> If so, it seems reasonable that no temporary remedy would also apply to an 
> NCA Leave of Absence or Vacancy.  At present, Section 3.8 provides that all 
> NCA votes would be treated as abstentions in the event of a Leave of Absence. 
>  I will need to make several changes to Sections 3.8 and 4.5 (not difficult) 
> if the GCOT decides to alter this provision regarding the voting NCAs. 
>  
> 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.
>  
> [KAB]  Acknowledged.  I am currently designing/building an Excel spreadsheet 
> to assist Glen with voting tabulations and tracking (assuming that these 
> procedures will be approved).  Glen and I are scheduled to review it this 
> coming Tuesday and are hopeful to have a version operational for the 20 May 
> Council meeting.  

Good luck Glen.

thanks
a.