RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

If ?public sector policy processes with government? are less tedious and
bureaucratic -  then we really need to simplify!

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025

Fax: +92 21 35655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged
information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction,
publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part
or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic
means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is
prohibited.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 28 October 2010 23:50
To: William Drake; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council; Philip Sheppard; Ray Fassett; Avri Doria;
Ken Bour; NCSG EC
Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer

 

As I step onto my plane

I am involved in many public sector policy processes with government

None have the degree of bureaucracy we seem to have embedded in our
processes

Needs early review! 

My operational experience managing thousands of people says "Unless it's
simple, it won't happen!"

Life's too short!

Rosemary

Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

  _____  

From: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Sender: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:46:01 +1100

To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Philip
Sheppard<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>; Ray Fassett<ray@xxxxxxxxx>; Avri
Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>; Ken Bour<ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer

 

Hi

 

On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:






Thanks for forwarding this Chuck. I think Avri's email makes a lot of sense.
I agree that the rules should not be so cumbersome as to force the Council
to spend more time and effort on admin stuff to the detriment of policy
issues. I have stated several times that I found the current DOI rules we
are trying to work to overly cumbersome, and also voiced my opposition to
the way the proxy rules were interpreted recently as they stopped both an
RrSG and an NCSG councillor from voicing their vote.

I also share the worry that staff should become "rules enforcers". It is up
to Council leaders to enforce the rules, working with the Council.

I do hope we can streamline the rules so that the sound theory and good
intentions that went into elaborating them does not stand in the way of the
practical sense needed to apply them in our everyday work.

 

I agree with Stéphane and Tim that the proxy rules seem cumbersome and
unduly restrictive.  As with the DOI, we should have had a more probing
discussion at the Council level before voting, but there's no reason why we
can't course correct now.

 

 

On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote:

 

3)      There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the
online form: 

a.      For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the
"Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative
voting position per its Charter provisions; and

b.      For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is
has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote.

 

 

Do I understand correctly that the AO as a whole must have a unified
position one way or the other in order for a Councilor's vote to be given to
colleague, otherwise it is penalized and loses the vote?  Maybe that's ok
for any AO's that only allow their Councilors to vote as specifically
directed; no agreement, no direction, nothing lost.  It would not be ok for
AO's that allow their Councilors to exercise judgement and do what they
think is right, and hence may not have a singular position.  In this case,
the absent Councilor who should have been able to give her/his proxy to a
colleague and say please vote xyz loses the vote for no reason.  

 

On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Ken Bour wrote:





In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the ?Appointing
Organization? differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who
were elected by the NCUC.   For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would
have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas,
for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating
Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed
by the NCSG.   

 

Ok?So we are not quite NCSG in this context??

 

The NCUC charter says Councilors may "assign their vote by proxy to the
other Constituency GNSO Council Representative for all calls and meetings
for which he/she cannot be present, with or without specific voting
instructions."  And the Interim Charter the board gave NCSG, which
presumably is über alles, says only that a Councilor "elected or appointed
pursuant to this Charter shall be subject to the rules, principles,
responsibilities, and duties as set forth in the Charter of the Constituency
that originally nominated him/her for election to the Council," which for us
elected types would be NCUC.  So then we three can individually assign our
proxies to each other and exercise proxy votes irrespective of whether our
AO has established an affirmative or negative voting position?  Or do the
OPs trump both the NCUC and the NCSG charters?

 

I should never try to grok the OPs after a long day?.

 

Bill