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

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

Sounds good Ray.  I would just make one change to your plan: please send
the final document tomorrow, not Thursday, if at all possible.  Please
ask Julie to send it to the Council list as I may be unavailable.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:04 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Metalitz, Steven'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final
Drafts
        
        

        Steve, thank you for the constructive comments.  Chuck, thank
you for putting forth some proposed edits to these comments and/or
explanation.  Here's my recommendation:  We have a Work Team call
tomorrow to discuss all feedback received by end of day today.  I would
like to take Steve's input, with Chuck's suggested edits, and present
for discussion tomorrow.  The goal of tomorrow's call is to finalize the
Work Team's approval of the draft RoP (for sending on to the Council not
later than Thursday of this week.  The input we receive from the OSC is
material to this objective.  Many of the points Steve raises, for
example, were discussed by the Work Team.  The question of a vote to
abstain counting as a vote against was one we spent some time on and
even doubled back to and discussed again.  But we landed in the same
place each time that this is the way the ICANN Board operates so we
chose to stay consistent (rather than be inconsistent).  But we can
discuss this again in a new context - i.e. we've just had the Chair of
the OSC delete it as a result of agreeing with another OSC member :-)  I
will defer to the Work Team on matters such as this i.e. group
discussion towards rough consensus.

         

        With the above said, Chuck, if you could please allow me to send
to you tomorrow, after our call, where the Work Team has landed on the
comments/edits received by end of day today for the purpose of sending
to you the new, clean version.

         

        Ray

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:36 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:

                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