RE: [gnso-osc-ops] RE: Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am in agreement as well.

 

Ken, seeing as there are no additional comments, please send me the final
version for the OSC of Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.  I will use the
transmittal letter as contained below (the only edit being the removal of a
KAB note to # 3 of {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}. 

 

----------------------------------------

 

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, <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.3>  Section
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.   

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

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:34 PM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc-ops] RE: Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

For me as well

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen 
Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG  
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 
Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 3-7 
D - 64295 Darmstadt 
+49 2244 873999 (Tel.) 
+49 2151 5300 5206 (PC-Fax) 
+49 151 1452 5867 (Mobil) 
http://www.telekom.com <http://www.telekom.com/>  

Deutsche Telekom AG 
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) 
Vorstand: René Obermann (Vorsitzender) 
Timotheus Höttges (stellvertretender Vorsitzender) 
Hamid Akhavan, Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Guido
Kerkhoff, Thomas Sattelberger 
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn 
WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE50478376 

 

 


  _____  


Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Ron Andruff
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Mai 2010 18:39
An: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-osc-ops] RE: Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

Works for me, Ken.  

 

Thanks,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 


  _____  


From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:35 PM
To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

GCOT Members:

 

In light of Ron?s response to my comment about limiting the selection of a
TA to the ?membership? of a SG, I propose the following language change to
4.5.3-c(i):  

 

?In selecting a Temporary Alternate, the appointing organization is expected
to shall choose, from within its membership ranks, a responsible individual
who is not a current voting GNSO Council member, but is otherwise
knowledgeable on the matter at issue and qualified to represent the
appointing organization?s interests.?

 

Will these edits accomplish the objective?   

 

Ken

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:47 AM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

Dear all,

 

I accept the modifications in Section 3.8 in total.

 

I accept the modifications in Section 4.0, with the following responses to
Ken?s comments:

 

*        Re: 4.5.3. c, i [Comment KAB2], specifically   limit a SG in
choosing a TA from within its organization (i.e. bonafide member)  I feel
the TA must be a bonafide member of the SG.  If an SG feels that it needs to
take expert advice on a matter before the GNSO, it should do so and then
instruct its TA member on how to vote.

 

*        Re: 4.5.3. c, i [Comment KAB3], specifically   We probably don?t
want the TA remedy to become a ?back door? for an otherwise term-limited
Councilor to reappear at Council meetings as a substitute voter.  Unless
GCOT thinks it should undertake a new task to draft broader GNSO Council
membership criteria, I recommend at least highlighting ?Term Limits? to
avoid potential confusion.  I agree that we do not want to leave a loophole
that someone will surely try to take advantage of sooner or later.  One
thing that has been lacking in ICANN for the past 10-years, but has improved
somewhat in the last few, is having ?fresh faces? replace those who have
?squatted? on the GNSO council for too many years.  For this reason, I feel
strongly that a former councilor who was term limited out of the council
should be excluded from serving as a TA.  Having said that, if the Work Team
feels that (1) the term limited ex-councilor would be more capable to get
up-to-speed on an issue more quickly than another member; or (2) the
likelihood of an ex-councilor TA having an SOI and bio already on file with
ICANN, meaning one less issue to be addressed, I would concede my stated
position to agree to allow a term-limited councilor being put forward as a
TA.

 

As for highlighting ?Term Limits?, I agree with Ken?s recommendation.

 

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 1:44 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

GCOT Members:

 

Attached are revised versions of Section 3.8-Absences & Vacancies and
Chapter 4.0-Voting.   Per the team?s direction on 19 May, I accepted all
prior edits; the attached documents primarily show revisions pertaining to
House NCAs remedies.  

 

As I indicated in my earlier note to the list, the changes were more
extensive than I anticipated; however, I believe that these versions
accomplish the team?s intention to permit Proxy Voting and Temporary
Alternate remedies for the two House NCAs.  

 

I made a few additional edits not related specifically to the NCA issue
because, pretty much every time I reconsider these procedures, I notice
language that can be improved and/or clarified.   Since time is of the
essence, I won?t attempt to enumerate all of the edits in this email because
they are redlined and also commented where I thought additional explanation
would help rationalize the amendment.  

 

I will stay abreast of list email traffic and be prepared to work diligently
toward creating a final clean version by end of business tomorrow.  

 

Ken Bour