RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Transmittal to OSC: Voting Abstentions

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That is my fault.  I sent them to the wrong list.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 5:37 PM
        To: Ken Bour; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GCOT Transmittal to OSC: Voting
Abstentions
        
        
        I would like the archive to reflect that these twenty pages of
documents were distributed less than 18 hours prior to the scheduled
start time of our meeting, although nearly all of them are dated last
Monday or earlier.  
         
        Steve Metalitz

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
        Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:09 PM
        To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-osc] GCOT Transmittal to OSC: Voting Abstentions
        
        

        OSC Members:

         

        Forwarding this email to the OSC per Chuck's request...  

         

        Ken Bour

        =======

         

        OSC Members:    

         

        I have a series of work products from the GCOT ready your
review.  To this e-mail, I have attached three documents:

         

        1)      An Executive Summary intended to provide the OSC with
the GCOT's thought processes and rationale in designing the attached
abstention provisions that we are recommending be included in the GNSO
Operating Procedures as a replacement for Section 4-Voting.  

        2)      Section 4 Voting of the Council Rules of Procedure.  We
are asking for the OSC to review and recommend Section 4.5-Abstentions
to the Council for its review and consideration as part the Nairobi
meeting.  The entire Section 4 is included for two purposes:  (a) so
that Section 4.5 can be read in context; and (b) to reflect a few
changes in 4.2-4.3 that were required to maintain consistency
(redlined).   Since Cairo, the Work Team, along with ICANN Staff
support, has invested considerable time and effort in understanding the
abstention issues involved from a Councilor perspective, an
SG/Constituency perspective including differences in Charters, as well
as seeking Staff General Counsel advice based upon the history of this
topic over the years to finally land at the language we have per the
attached.  While we realize it unlikely that the abstention language can
be brought to an actual vote of the Council as part of Nairobi, we have
taken the liberty of providing to the OSC a draft motion contained below
for OSC consideration:

         

        SAMPLE COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

         

        WHEREAS the GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) has
developed a set of abstention provisions that it recommends be
incorporated into the GNSO Operations Procedures as Sub-Section 4.5
(part of 4.0-Voting); and

        WHEREAS the GCOT has also identified other voting procedures
within Section 4.0 that it recommends be amended to be consistent with
its proposed abstentions provisions; and 

        WHEREAS the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) has reviewed all
of these revisions and recommends them for adoption by the GNSO Council.


        RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts Version ___ (TBD) of the
GNSO Operating Procedures, including the recommended revisions to
Section 4 and its new Sub-Section 4.5. 

        RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to post
this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum
and reserves the right to modify these procedures upon conclusion of
that public comment period.

         

        3)      Analysis of 2009 Abstention Voting.  This exercise was
for the purpose of interpreting how the Section 4.5-Abstentions language
would have affected actual Councilor abstention votes if it had been in
place at the time.  While admittedly some interpretation by the Work
Team, we think this was a useful analysis that we want to share with the
OSC as part of its review of the Section 4.5 language.  I should mention
that Work Team members debated whether to redact individual names from
this analysis for the reason of potentially being a distraction to the
real purpose of the analysis (which was to evaluate the recorded reason
for the abstention against the Section 4.5 language).  We decided not to
redact names for the reason that the voting information is public
information anyway.  I am mentioning this for two reasons: (a) a heads
up for OSC members to focus upon the intention of the analysis vs. "who"
performed the abstention and (b) for OSC members to consider, also,
whether or not to redact names if it is decided to share the analysis
more broadly, such as with GNSO Council members or other such public
disclosure.

         

        Also, we are seeking OSC advice with regards to Section
4.4-Absentee Voting (see embedded comment attached).  The Work Team is
strongly considering taking a close look at this language that may lead
to a recommendation.  One of our questions was:  What do members of the
OSC think?  Is the current language for Absentee voting acceptable?  For
example, the recent sort of emergency Board Seat 13 vote was excluded
from the ability for absentee voting.  Is this appropriate?  We are
questioning it and as part of this effort and seeking OSC member advice
with regards to the language as currently written. 

         

        Lastly, we have made quite a bit of progress on the Statement of
Interest document which we intend to incorporate into the Rules of
Procedure.  We feel this is ready for OSC review, including having
received ICANN staff legal counsel input.  I will be sending this to you
in the near future under separate cover.  The Work Team respectfully
requests prompt attention from the OSC to the Abstention Language as
contained in Section 4.5 of the attached document, including if possible
getting this language in front of GNSO Council members as part of their
agenda for discussion in Nairobi.  Upon review, OSC members will see the
approach we took with regards to Abstentions primarily on two fronts:
1) How can the reason for Council member abstention be remedied at the
SG/Constituency level; and 2) how can the outcome of reducing the
denominator at the time of Council vote due to an abstention be the rare
exception.  While our Work Team does not necessarily conduct its
business by way of formal voting measures, I believe it is appropriate
for me to communicate as the Chair that we had what I considered as
supermajority consensus to these 2 points which was the basis of our
work the leading to the final product as now being recommended to the
OSC.

         

        Please let me know if any questions.

         

        Ray Fassett

        Chair

        GCOT