RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
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:
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 with Gomes edits 15 Sep 09.doc
|