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? 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? 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. 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? 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. Section 5.3: Unclear why the third and fourth sentences are included. 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). Section 7: I gather the list of items subject to absentee balloting reflects current procedures? Why the limited list? 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). 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: 1. GNSO Council Operating Procedures Rev090911 Final Draft MARKUP.doc, which shows original unchanged text in black, additions/changes in red, and deletions as stricken. 2. 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 Attachment:
GNSO Council Operating Procedures Rev090911 Final Draft CLEA (GNSO Council Operating Procedures Rev090911 Final Draft CLEAN).doc
|