Re: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Good point.

Might be worth using the same criteria for voting out an errant NCA  
from the new Bylaws:

> stated by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of all members of each House in  
> the case of the non-voting Nominating Committee appointee (see  
> Section 3(10) of this Article
a.



On 17 Sep 2009, at 03:19, Vanda Scartezini wrote:

> Dear all
> I have 2 points
> a)      I haven’t see any item related to the way any elected member  
> -Chair or Vice Chair - could be dismissed  ( or which are the  
> reasonable reasons to do that)
> b)       At the item 9 Observers, I should add  “other ICANN  
> Supporting Organization  or Advisory Committees to exchange observers”
> Vanda Scartezini
> POLO Consultores Associados
> &  IT Trend
> Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
> 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
> Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
> Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On  
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Ray Fassett
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
> Importance: High
>
> Thank you Steve for the very thorough review and constructive  
> suggestions.  Using your comments below, I created a new redlined  
> version to facilitate Ray's final consideration of this today and  
> inserted some comments below.  In cases where I thought an edit was  
> appropriate, I made the edit.  In cases where it seemed like a  
> comment was more appropriate, I inserted a comment.  Finally, I  
> accepted formatting edits to make the document a little cleaner.
> Ray - Please review and respond to the comments from Steve and I  
> below.  Also, please check the edits and comments made in the  
> attached file.  If they are okay based on your understanding of the  
> GCOT's intent, please accept the edits and send me a clean version  
> later today.
> Chuck
>
> From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:17 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Ray Fassett
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
>
> Chuck, thank you for circulating this.  I attach a mark-up with just  
> a few minor changes.  In addition I have some questions which may  
> belong in the "comment summary" rather than in the text at this  
> point in the process.
> Section 3.5: many bodies provide for discussion to begin even before  
> a voting quorum arrives.  So is the first sentence necessary?
> [Gomes, Chuck] I agree and deleted it in my new version.
>
> Section 4.1:  I note that this provision does not address how the  
> Houses nominate their candidates. Is this left up to the discretion  
> of each House, or is there a baseline which each must meet?
> [Gomes, Chuck] Ray and I discussed this last week and he suggested  
> that it was best to let the Houses determine this. I was fine with  
> that. I inserted a comment to this effect.
> Section 5.1:  My suggested change is intended to reflect  
> participation via "electronic video screen communication" -- not  
> sure what that is but I assume it may not include live voice -- or  
> by hearing-impaired Council members.
> [Gomes, Chuck] Good catch.
>
> same:  Is the second paragraph intended to allow for non-member  
> participation in teleconference meetings?  This has not generally  
> been allowed up to now.   Shouldn't that be on a listen-only basis?   
> Or does this paragraph only apply to face to face meetings?
> [Gomes, Chuck] I thought that had been changed.  I raised the same  
> issue with Ray last week and pointed out that it may be logistically  
> difficult and expensive to allow observers on teleconference calls  
> except when specifically invited.  I made an edit that I think fixes  
> this in the attached file.
> Section 5.2:   Why the change from 5 business days advance  
> submission of motions etc. to 8?  This could make it even more  
> difficult for Council to act quickly.
> [Gomes, Chuck] The current practice is that motions should be  
> submitted 7 calendar days in advance of a meeting.  I suggested to  
> Ray that we add a day to allow for agenda finalization but I meant a  
> calendar day, not a business day.  I made an edit to reflect this in  
> the attached version.  I agree that 8 business days is too long.  I  
> would be okay with 7 calendar days if others think that is the  
> better way to go.
> Section 5.3:  Unclear why the third and fourth sentences are included.
> [Gomes, Chuck] I'll let Ray answer this.  I added a comment in the  
> new version.
> Section 5.4:  To repeat a concern that I raised at the time of the  
> last reorganization:  why should an abstention always count as a  
> vote against?  This is a problem particularly when a member must (or  
> chooses to)  abstain because of a conflict.  This rule makes it  
> impossible for the council member to manage the conflict, because s/ 
> he cannot avoid a "no" vote.  An alternative would be for an  
> abstention to count toward a quorum but that percentages  
> (thresholds) would be calculated based on the number of non- 
> abstaining voters.  Another is to make this rule inapplicable to  
> abstentions stimulated by conflict concerns (or more precisely, when  
> the member has interests that would be affected by outcome of vote).
> [Gomes, Chuck] I think you make a very good point. I have always  
> wondered about that myself but didn't discuss it with Ray.  I  
> deleted the last sentence and the link to the Bylaws in the attached  
> document.
> Section 7:  I gather the list of items subject to absentee balloting  
> reflects current procedures?  Why the limited list?
> [Gomes, Chuck] The list corresponds to the current Bylaws provision  
> for absentee voting.  It could be expanded in the future and the  
> GCOT may consider that in its continuing work but it was thought  
> best to focus on a minimal set of rules at this time because of the  
> short time constraints.  The GCOT deferred elements of the rules  
> that would likely require more discussion and might be more  
> controversial and time consuming.
> Other:  I understand there is an informal rule allowing any council  
> member to delay (until the next meeting) action on certain agenda  
> items the first time they appear on the agenda.  Shouldn't this rule  
> be formalized in the operating procedures (e.g., which items are or  
> are not subject to this procedure?  must a member give notice that s/ 
> he will invoke this rule?  is invocation of the rule at consecutive  
> meetings always barred?  etc).
> [Gomes, Chuck] Good question.  I personally think that it would be  
> good if the rules dealt with this but I would suggest deferring this  
> for later GCOT work because it probably would take a little more  
> time to agree on the specific details such as the one you raise in  
> your second sentence.  I decided not to enter a comment about this  
> in the attached file but would be happy to do so if you like.  I do  
> ask Ray to put this on their agenda for the future though.
> Steve Metalitz
>
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On  
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Ray Fassett
> Subject: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
> Importance: High
>
> Attention OSC members,
>
> Quick review and comments are needed on the attached documents from  
> the GNSO Council Operations WT (GCOT), chaired by Ray Fassett with  
> Staff support from Julie Hedland.  As you will recall, GCOT was  
> assigned the task of making recommendations for revision of those  
> portions of the GNSO Council Rules of Procedure necessary to seat  
> the new bicameral Council in Seoul.  In order to get Council review  
> and approval in time to then get Board approval of the revised rules  
> before Seoul, they need to be sent to the Council NLT this coming  
> Thursday, 17 September.  To allow a day for any final edits, we need  
> any comments or edits you may have by COB on Tuesday, 15 September.   
> Sorry for the short turn-around.
> Here are some important points of information:
> 	• Clean and redlined versions are attached; the redlined version  
> highlights the latest changes made that have not yet been reviewed  
> by the full GCOT; they will be reviewing these concurrently with the  
> OSC review.
> 	• The proposed operating procedures only contain a subset of what  
> will eventually be a more complete set of procedures; the GCOT will  
> continue to work on other elements of the procedures and those will  
> be considered later in the year; this version contains just those  
> elements that are considered essential for seating the Council in  
> Seoul.
> 	• Please feel free to suggest edits; Ray and Julie will incorporate  
> as many edits as appropriate to create a document for the Council;  
> so as not to undermine the extensive work of the GCOT, in cases  
> where material content changes are suggested, it is my suggestion  
> that substantial edits that involve changes to any of the GCOT  
> recommendations be included in the comment summary for Council  
> consideration rather than changing the GCOT recommended procedures  
> at this time.  The Council could of course to include them in the  
> final document sent to the Board.
> 	• We won't have time for a formal approval by the OSC so my plan is  
> to forward the document to the Council with a brief summary of OSC  
> comments.
> 	• Once the Council receives the recommended procedures document,  
> Councilors will be asked to immediately forward the document to  
> their respective groups for quick review and to be prepared to vote  
> on final approval in the Council meeting on 24 September and the  
> final document will then be sent to the Board in advance of their 30  
> September meeting.
> 	• The last step in the process will be approval of the procedures  
> by the new Council in the public meeting in Seoul on 28 October.
> Thanks in advance for your cooperation on this.  If you have any  
> questions, please let me know.  Also, if you have any questions for  
> the GCOT, I cc'd Ray and I am sure he would be happy to respond.
> Chuck
>
> From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:44 PM
> To: 'gnso-osc-ops'; 'Robert Hoggarth'
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Avri Doria'
> Subject: FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
>
> Work Team members, please see 2 final drafts attached of the RoP per  
> Julie’s preface below.  There have been some further edits this  
> afternoon so please take a look and let me know if any questions.
> Chuck, please use these versions to share with OSC members at this  
> time.  Any further comment from GCOT work team members or OSC  
> members are to be submitted by end of business day next Tuesday.  On  
> Wednesday, our expectation is for the 2 final draft versions to be  
> sent the GNSO Council for its review.
> Thanks for the effort on this everyone.
>
> Ray
>
> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 6:44 PM
> To: Ray Fassett
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth
> Subject: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
>
> Ray,
>
> As we discussed, here are two draft documents that include the final  
> changes suggested by Chuck as well as those we received today from  
> Avri, Wolf-Ullrich, and Ron:
> 	• GNSO Council Operating Procedures Rev090911 Final Draft  
> MARKUP.doc, which shows original unchanged text in black, additions/ 
> changes in red, and deletions as stricken.
> 	• GNSO Council Operating Procedures Rev090911 Final Draft  
> CLEAN.doc, in which all changes are accepted and shown as complete.
> Please let me know if you have any questions or would like me to  
> make any additional changes.
> Thank you!
>
> Julie