Re: [council] Point for Discussion

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe you are presuming that a nomcomm rep couldn't pass a proxy to 
another party. Past practice was that they could, and if deemed 
necessary, made it conditional on following instructions. This also 
extended to constituency members. There were a couple of times that 
Norbert passed me his proxy on the basis that I voted it a specific way. 
On at least one occasion, those instructions ran contrary to the way I 
cast my ballot.

I don't see any reason why this couldn't be carried forward and 
explicitly include nomcomm reps.

Avri Doria wrote:
> On 13 jul 2007, at 12.47, Ross Rader wrote:
>
> > Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > > I also favor an approach that includes a prohibition against using a 
> > > proxy mechanism to avoid a required abstention based on a conflict of 
> > > interest.
> >
> > Why?
>
> On the basis of a basic fairness issue.
>
> My expectation is that everyone may at some point face a vote on which 
> they have a conflict that would force an abstention.
>
> In the event that someone is a nomcom appointee or from a constituency 
> that does not use a constituency discipline method of internal 
> organization, it makes sense that they would not be allowed to use the 
> proxy to avoid the need to abstain.  So, for me it follows from a 
> general non-prejudicial principle that, as I indicated, no constituency 
> be given an advantage based on their organizational practice or 
> methodology.
>
> > My interests and those of my constituency can be different. For 
> > instance, I have conflicts related to my employment with Tucows that 
> > other councillors may not share. Why should that prevent the registrar 
> > constituency from casting one of its ballots through proxy?
>
> I guess the actual question is who do the ballots belong to?
>
> I read the following by-laws as relevant:
>
> x.3.1 the GNSO Council shall consist of three representatives selected 
> by each of the Constituencies described in Section 5 of this Article, 
> and three persons selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee.
>
> X.3.8(b) all members are provided the means of fully participating in 
> all matters before the GNSO Council, and (c) ICANN adopts and implements 
> means of verifying that (x) a person participating in such a meeting is 
> a member of the GNSO Council or other person entitled to participate in 
> the meeting and (y) all actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are 
> taken or cast only by the members of the GNSO Council and not persons 
> who are not members.
>
> X.5.2. The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast 
> shall be equalized so that the aggregate number of votes of 
> representatives selected by the Constituencies (currently the gTLD 
> Registries and Registrars) that are under contract with ICANN obligating 
> them to implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the number of votes 
> of representatives selected by other Constituencies.
>
> I read this as stating that:
>  - a constituency can pick 3 members of council
>  - those council members, and only those council members have a right to 
> vote.
>  - the RyC and RC council members each have 2 votes
>
> My reading indicates that while the constituency picks the members, it 
> is the members who have the vote and not the constituencies.  I believe 
> it is totally acceptable practice for a constituency to place 
> requirements on how its representatives vote, but I do not see that as 
> meaning that they, therefore, control the votes in council, though they 
> do control the seating of the councilor.
>
> > As a general rule, I'd really prefer if we adopted a very simple set 
> > of rules governing the use of proxy's, and would strongly prefer if we 
> > just implemented the old rules as  starting point that we could adjust 
> > over time. I don't see a need to overthink or overengineer this simply 
> > to take into account "what-if's" that have never come into play during 
> > the history of the DNSO/GNSO.
>
>
> I agree with the general rule of making the simplest possible change.  
> However, in this case, I think we would need a much larger change to the 
> by-laws to accommodate your suggestion, which of course we can discuss 
> doing.  Additonally since the concern about the possibility of use of 
> proxy to get around the abstention requirement has been brought up in 
> regard to proxy voting, I believe we have to consider that in any 
> proposed changes to the by-laws.
>
> thanks
>
> a.


--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492