Re: [council] Point for Discussion

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Except I don't agree that that consultation with the constituency is 
required or necessary. I would prefer that dealing with these details be 
left to each constituency to sort out. For instance, I'm required to 
represent the interests and positions of my constituency, and subject to 
recall provisions when the membership feels that I don't. This extends 
to all of my formal council activities, including my (former) use of 
proxies. I don't know if some form of check or double-check is important 
if we instead rely on constituency self-determination to manage their 
council rep relationships.

Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> I agree with Ross and Chuck on this point:
>
> constituency should not be penalized because [a Councilor] has a
> conflict of interest, as long as there is simple confirmation from an
> officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> Sr. Legal Director
>
> Yahoo! Inc.
>
>  
>
> NOTE:  This message may be protected by attorney-client and/or work
> product privileges, if you are not the intended recipient then please
> delete this message and all attachments and notify me as soon as
> possible.  Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:23 AM
> To: Avri Doria; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
>
> I seriously wonder whether the writers of the Bylaws intended that a
> Council representative could vote however he/she pleased regardless of a
> constituency position, so it seems to me that this should be fixed in
> the Bylaws.  I agree with Ross that his constituency should not be
> penalized because he has a conflict of interest as long as their simple
> confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a
> specific position.  The intent of my original suggestion was to deal
> with situations like this.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>  
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:19 PM
> > To: GNSO Council
> > Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
> >
> >
> > 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