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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ken, where did this land in the language of the documents we will be
reviewing later today?:

"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."

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:14 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Re: Revised Chapter 4 and Section 3.8


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.