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

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

Thanks Ray.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:13 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Metalitz, Steven'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final
Drafts
        
        

        Right, my intent is for us to send to you the clean version
tomorrow afternoon (i.e. Wednesday).  I will note with Julie to send to
the Council list.

         

        Thanks Chuck,

         

        Ray

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:08 PM
        To: Ray Fassett; Metalitz, Steven; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final
Drafts

         

        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