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

["Vanda Scartezini" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all

 I have 2 points

a)      I haven't see any item related to the way any elected member -Chair
or Vice Chair - could be dismissed  ( or which are the reasonable reasons to
do that)

b)       At the item 9 Observers, I should add  "other ICANN Supporting
Organization  or Advisory Committees to exchange observers"  

Vanda Scartezini

POLO Consultores Associados

&  IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.

Fone + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob + 5511 8181.1464

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:36 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