Please see the transcript below.
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika
I just
Julie
Hedlund:joined
Marika
Konings:Hi Julie
Marika
Konings:Analysis is up now.
avri:The
opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG.
J. Scott
Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no
formal process for considering the issue
Ron A:@
Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling
Ron A:BC
supports status quo
Ron A:Agree
with argument; but safeguard the principle
Ron A:My
point Avri!
J. Scott
Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our
reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the
discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated.
Ron A:What
happens if the chair is biased for or against?
Ron A:bias
by way of affiliation
J. Scott
Evans:Good question Anne.
J. Scott
Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because
he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to
the SCIU
avri:Except
in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice
belongs to the chair.
J. Scott
Evans:SCI
avri:PDP's
not PDPD's
Anne
Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance
documents, I think.
Anne
Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual
holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a
deferral should be clear if it is needed.
J. Scott
Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that
the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.
Ray Fassett
- RySG:agree with J Scott
J. Scott
Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be
automatically granted
Ron A:@ J
+1
Anne
Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for
this opinion by SCI.
Ron A:8 days
for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days
Avri
Ray Fassett
- RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist
in procedures for the chair to always act neutral
Anne
Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as
"neutral".
Ray Fassett
- RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that
complaint, I believe
Anne
Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that
position in relation to complaints?
avri:i
disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do.
avri:coffying -
codifying.
Ron A:@
Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI
Ron A:SCI
recommendations
avri:each
chair gets to interpret on her own.
Ron A:Let
the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle
avri:and if
she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not
re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council
rules.
Ray Fassett
- RySG:agree with ron and avri
Ron A:@ J -
fully agree with your summation
avri:The
working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be
offereing specific alternatives.
Ray Fassett
- RySG:agree with j scott
Ron A:The
reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds
Anne
Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice
itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also
discretionary?
J. Scott
Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice
is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the
Chair.
J. Scott
Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be
exercised in all cases.
Ron A:Good
bye all
J. Scott
Evans:or extended I should say
Ray Fassett
- RySG:thanks Wolf
Wolf
Knoben:Thanks all