Question 1: should the ability of “sending the notification” been offered to others (e.g. council members)?
Since "be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization" and since it is "the Proxy Giver's appointing organization" that determines who is qualified to send such a notification, why not?
Question 2: should “(non) ordinarily” be defined and how?
In what way would this group define all of the possible non ordinary cases where it would be necessary. One problem has to do with the receipt of the notice and the awareness of the receipt of the notice. Not only is email, or other mechanisms, not 100% reliable, there is not guarantee that the GNSO secretariat will have been able to read the message before the meeting starts.
Under Recommendations:
In case of an “unusual” proxy notification a solution could be that the council – as it was done – “on the spot” hears the rationale and decides with simple majority.
I think that it should not need a vote unless challenged. In the case of collegial g-council, it might not be necessary to hold a vote. It should be possible to hold a vote if even one council member challenges the unusual circumstance. but if someone says "council member X was hit by a car just 10 minutes ago and we are establishing proxy" I would hope that the curcumstance might not be challenged.
I do not think we should be making rules only for today's dirempted and combative g-council, we should be making rules that make the process smoother within the principles we are trying to maintain, just in case some day the council goes back to being a collegial environment. In this case, the principle I assume we are trying to uphold is that we do not want the rules to be such as to prevent a Stakeholder Group from having its proper chance to participate and vote according to the rule of subsidiarity that allows for each SG to define its own processes within the limits of the bylaws and GNSO operating principles.
In my Humble opinion, in this point is needed to consider the proxy between NCAs also.
And some kind of sanction in case of non-fulfillment, because in a violation case of GNSO OP, is not considered, how is repaired this violation. And this is not a minor situation, because could be a vote added to one of two parties, wich could be influential in a important votation .
You're right Carlos that NCAs should be taken into consideration. The rules are very clear on this: the voting NCA can give and hold a proxy, the non voting NCA can hold a proxy (which is the only case she/he can vote). In both cases they have to follow the same rules as any council member.
I think rules in our OP are clear on this point (NCA`s proxy vote).
My comment has to do with: there are not sanction to whom violate this rule. In the recent past, I have mentioned a clear situation (to me) of violation of our OP, on this point, but nothing happened, like nothing being occured.
On this situation (IMHO) each councilor was responsible, but nobody did nothing (my Q is: Councilors doesnt known our rules? or doesnt matter for them? or...?). This is a concern seriously to me, because has to do with a transparency in the act of goverment, and every Councilor must know the rules (have the obligation to know the rules, maximum when is a leader), and when the rules are not fulfilled, somebody must be punished, or at least adverted.
I think, we need to analize the situation to avoid a repetition. The Rules gives to Us a framework of confidence and security, not only for us, for the whole community too, and disrespect this rules, is to me sincerely serious, and cant repeted.
Recommendation:
Since there is no consensus in the group for a change to the rule to allow for proxy announcement to be made during a meeting by an officer of the Stakeholder Group, and there is not likely to be such consensus anytime soon, the group requests that staff rework the Proxy procedure to allow for the email notification to go both to the secretariat and to the g-council list. This would be within the current rules and would lessen the work burden on the GNSO secretariat of having to forward these on to the g-council list. These would also allow for proxy requests to not rely on the secretariat's ability to receive and report them at the last minute shoould there be need and should the SG procedures allow for such last minute proxy service.
6 Comments
Avri Doria
Since "be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization" and since it is "the Proxy Giver's appointing organization" that determines who is qualified to send such a notification, why not?
In what way would this group define all of the possible non ordinary cases where it would be necessary. One problem has to do with the receipt of the notice and the awareness of the receipt of the notice. Not only is email, or other mechanisms, not 100% reliable, there is not guarantee that the GNSO secretariat will have been able to read the message before the meeting starts.
Under Recommendations:
I think that it should not need a vote unless challenged. In the case of collegial g-council, it might not be necessary to hold a vote. It should be possible to hold a vote if even one council member challenges the unusual circumstance. but if someone says "council member X was hit by a car just 10 minutes ago and we are establishing proxy" I would hope that the curcumstance might not be challenged.
I do not think we should be making rules only for today's dirempted and combative g-council, we should be making rules that make the process smoother within the principles we are trying to maintain, just in case some day the council goes back to being a collegial environment. In this case, the principle I assume we are trying to uphold is that we do not want the rules to be such as to prevent a Stakeholder Group from having its proper chance to participate and vote according to the rule of subsidiarity that allows for each SG to define its own processes within the limits of the bylaws and GNSO operating principles.
Carlos Aguirre
In my Humble opinion, in this point is needed to consider the proxy between NCAs also.
And some kind of sanction in case of non-fulfillment, because in a violation case of GNSO OP, is not considered, how is repaired this violation. And this is not a minor situation, because could be a vote added to one of two parties, wich could be influential in a important votation .
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
You're right Carlos that NCAs should be taken into consideration. The rules are very clear on this: the voting NCA can give and hold a proxy, the non voting NCA can hold a proxy (which is the only case she/he can vote). In both cases they have to follow the same rules as any council member.
Carlos Aguirre
I think rules in our OP are clear on this point (NCA`s proxy vote).
My comment has to do with: there are not sanction to whom violate this rule. In the recent past, I have mentioned a clear situation (to me) of violation of our OP, on this point, but nothing happened, like nothing being occured.
On this situation (IMHO) each councilor was responsible, but nobody did nothing (my Q is: Councilors doesnt known our rules? or doesnt matter for them? or...?). This is a concern seriously to me, because has to do with a transparency in the act of goverment, and every Councilor must know the rules (have the obligation to know the rules, maximum when is a leader), and when the rules are not fulfilled, somebody must be punished, or at least adverted.
I think, we need to analize the situation to avoid a repetition. The Rules gives to Us a framework of confidence and security, not only for us, for the whole community too, and disrespect this rules, is to me sincerely serious, and cant repeted.
Avri Doria
Ron Andruff
I support Avri's approach, which I read as streamlining the process, but not changing the current process/