RE: [gnso-osc-ops] OSC Transmittal for Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm good with the text.

 

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 20, 2010 5:25 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] OSC Transmittal for Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

GCOT Members:

 

Below is a revised transmittal letter to the OSC in which I updated bullet
#4 to be consistent with our teleconference on 19 May and the most recent
documents submitted earlier today, 20 May, for GCOT review and approval.

 

Ken Bour

=======

 

DRAFT TRANSMITTAL LETTER

 

To:  OSC Members

 

In early March 2010, in preparation for the ICANN Nairobi meetings, the GNSO
Council Operations Team (GCOT) submitted to the OSC a new Chapter 4.0-Voting
that it recommended be included within the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP).
As you will recall, the major purpose of that document was a new set of
provisions for handling abstentions.   Accompanying the new GOP chapter, the
GCOT also attached an Executive Summary which discussed the major
implications of abstentions as they apply to GNSO Council voting and
explained the GCOT's rationale in developing its recommendations.   

 

During the OSC's Nairobi session, several questions were raised by OSC
members that caused the GCOT to revisit and revise certain sections of the
document.   In addition, as a result of the team's continued deliberations,
additional changes have been made although the underlying architecture of
the abstention remedies remains intact.   

 

For the purposes of informing the OSC as to the revisions made, we thought
it might be useful to outline them in the following section versus
attempting to rewrite the original Executive Summary (attached), which
otherwise continues to be an accurate rationale for the GCOT's work on
abstentions. 

 

Summary of GCOT Amendments since Nairobi: 

 

1)      New Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies

At the time the original Section 4.5-Abstentions was drafted, it included
applying the Temporary Alternate remedy for certain absence conditions.
During its review, the General Counsel's office recommended that, instead of
confusing absences and abstentions, a new section be added to the GOP to
cover absences.  That section was not completed prior to Nairobi; however,
it is included in this transmission.   The title was subsequently changed
to, "Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies" as a result of a question raised
during Nairobi, that is, "Do Councilor vacancies cause the voting
denominator to change?" 

The GCOT recognized that, while vacancy procedures exist in the Bylaws
{Article X, Section 3(3) <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.3>
}, nothing is stated about what happens to the voting thresholds in such
situations.  Certainly a permanent vacancy would ultimately be resolved by
electing a replacement; however, there might be a period of vacancy before
the new Councilor takes his/her seat.  During such transitions, the GCOT is
recommending that the Temporary Alternate remedy be made available to
appointing organizations.  Section 3.8 was amended to address temporary
vacancies and, as OCS members will note, it also covers planned and
unplanned absences as well as leaves of absence.  

2)      A second issue raised in Nairobi was the need for a procedure that
allows Councilors to provide a reason or explanation when voting "Yes" or
"No."  There is a prevailing perception that to offer an explanation
requires an abstention.   To clarify this subject, the GCOT elected to
modify the GOP (see Section 4.3.2) to provide that, while Councilors are not
required to give a reason for a "No" or "Yes" vote, it is permissible and
such explanations will be recorded in the minutes.   

3)      A third question raised in Nairobi was, "Did the GCOT consider the
concept of a 'Permanent' Alternate?  Staff responded that General Counsel's
advice was to ensure that any application of "Temporary Alternate" be
incident specific and limited in duration; however, there is nothing in the
procedures that would prevent a SG/C from selecting an individual who is,
more or less, "on call" to become a TA whenever that remedy is needed.   {KB
Note:  I included this item for completeness since Steve Metalitz is an OCS
member and may recall this item; however, since it did not result in any
change to the procedures, the team might consider deleting it from this
memorandum}.  

4)      After further deliberation, the GCOT determined that, due to the
unique challenges presented by the Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) in
not having "appointing organizations" as defined in the procedures, it would
be logistically impractical to involve the Houses in approving remedies for
abstentions.  The team decided to rewrite the provisions for House NCAs to
permit Proxy Voting and Temporary Alternate remedies that are automatically
activated (based on conditions and rules) without requiring action by the
Houses or the Nominating Committee.  

5)      The term "Appointing Organization" was needed in Section 3.8, but it
had only been defined in Section 4.5.   In order to permit the use of this
terminology throughout the GOP, Staff will be recommending a new
"Definitions" section to be included in Chapter 1.0.  Staff will also be
recommending several additional GOP improvements including a Table of
Contents, a Document Revisions section, and placeholders for new chapters
that are in process (e.g. Chapter 5.0-Statements and Disclosures of Interest
and Chapter 6.0-GNSO Work Prioritization).  

 

The GCOT hopes that the above summary of changes will be instructive for OSC
members in reviewing the revised Chapter 4.0-Voting and Section 3.8-Absences
& Vacancies.  

 

The GCOT's expectation is that the OSC, in its review process, may make
certain non-substantive amendments to these documents; however, it requests
that any substantive changes be remanded to the team for further
deliberation.  

 

If the OSC needs additional explanation or rationale for any of attached
procedures, please let us know.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Ray Fassett

Chair-GCOT