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