RE: [council] Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data that is collected and retained by registrars

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll attempt to address one point that I see on the use of proxy votes. I
have earlier stated my support for allowing 'written votes' or votes with
explanation, in writing, which I suppose is a substitute for a proxy
vote....

I supported proxy voting when it existed, but I do want to be sure that
proxy voting takes place only with written instruction, and with assurance
that the voting councilor has engaged in the relevant discussion, studied
the issue(s)  and is voting an 'informed vote'. They should be the judge of
that, by the way. :-) But, we should ask ourselves: if a councilor misses
more than ( X) votes and doesn't provide a really good explanation for why
they repeatedly miss Council meetings/votes, perhaps their constituency
should address this. Council may need to have standards for constituencies.
It is fully possible to participate remotely in all issues and I don't
consider in person attendance a measure of involvement. BUT, if a councilor
doesn't study the issues, examine them, engage within their constituency,
etc. and doesn't participate in the Council, or its votes, then that would
be a problem. 

By the way, I see no such problems in the Council today. 

The point of voting is that one should be fully engaged in an issue,
debating it, understanding it, and not merely voting, but taking full
responsibility for understanding an issue with its pros and cons. 

It should be possible to allow proxy voting, but probably needs to be pre
scheduled, since it is entirely possible Council will modify a resolution
after final debate/discussion. Thus, the party voting remotely/by proxy,
will need to have time to review the transcript, consult, and then confirm
or cast their vote. 

If a resolution is not materially modified during debate, then perhaps a
proxy vote works. 

Voting should be considered. When do we need voting? When can we operate by
consensus. For example the ITU, which is not a model to be ignored, or the
IETF... another model of useful consideration....

In the ITU SGS, in most SGs we avoid voting. We operate on the 'sense of the
room' and in some cases, take a 'raise your flag' straw poll.  The point is
'is there strong support, is the room split, is the room largely in support,
is there unanimity? \\Consensus is not necessarily unaniminty.  Consensus,
according to the new American Dictionary is 'general consent' or agreement. 

I am not suggesting we give up voting, but that, as we improve Council's
operational practices - that we consider what the right approaches are to
advance our ability to work collegially. 

HOW3VER, WRITTEN IN CAPS, SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS CRITICAL: LET'S NOT
GET SIDETRACKED FROM A DECISION BEFORE US BY HOW WE IN THE FUTURE ADDRESS
PROXY VOTING. 

ISN'T THAT WHY WE NEED TO HAVE A WORK PROBRAM ON THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THEY
COUNCIL, PER THE REVIEW PROJECT? TO TAKE ON IND. PIECES OF THE IMPROVEMENT
PLAN SOUND SILLY AND INEFFICIENT, AND A SERIES OF DISTRACTIONS. BUT IF WE
HAVE A GAME PLAN TO ADDRESS, WE CAN PUT PROXY VOTING AT THE TOP, IF
COUNCILORS AGREE. 

Marilyn 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:57 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data
that is collected and retained by registrars

I agree.  We need to have some kind of proxy voting in place.  Many of 
us are frequently on airplanes, in other meetings that can't be 
rescheduled, etc. and need some way for our views to be reflected in the 
council meeting - proxies are an easy way to do that.  Is there even a 
rationale for why we currently don't allow proxy voting?  Thank you.

Robin


tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx wrote:

>I would like to support Norbert's request, we need to look at the use of
>proxy voting again.
>
>Tony 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
>Sent: 19 July 2006 11:19
>To: Bruce Tonkin
>Cc: Council GNSO
>Subject: Re: [council] Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal
>Data that is collected and retained by registrars
>
>Dear Council Colleagues,
>dear Bruce,
>dear Glen,
>
>I have not been able to participate in the recent discussions for 
>technical constraints  (computer/network). At present, the heavy rainy 
>season makes it difficult to maintain stable wireless and satellite 
>connection ("rain degradation") I will try to be online on Thursday, but
>
>maybe it will not work for me.
>
>All the more I would like to ask that the council can discuss again the 
>possibility to create proxy vote facilities.
>
>
>Norbert
>
>=
>
>Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I have also improved this motion after input from Dan Halloran, Maria
>>Farrell, Denise Michael, and various members of the GNSO community!
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bruce Tonkin
>>
>>
>>I propose the following new motion:
>>
>>"The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted
>>    
>>
>privacy
>  
>
>>principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the
>>Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or
>>renewed Registered Name Holder stating:
>>
>>(i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the
>>applicant are intended;
>>
>>(ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data
>>(including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data
>>from Registry Operator);
>>
>>(iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary;
>>and
>>
>>(iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if
>>necessary, rectify the data held about them.
>>
>>To further understand the range of purposes for which data is
>>    
>>
>intended,
>  
>
>>the GNSO proposes the following steps:
>>
>>(1) The ICANN staff will review a sample of registrar agreements with
>>Registered Name Holders to identify some of the purposes for which
>>registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain
>>name for their customers.
>>
>>(2) The ICANN staff will review a sample of cctld registry or cctld
>>registrar agreements with registrants to identify some of the purposes
>>for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants.
>>
>>(3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has
>>resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current
>>uses of the data that is currently made public through the WHOIS
>>service.
>>
>>(4) Based on the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above,
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's
>>such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC regarding the purposes for collecting
>>Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required
>>    
>>
>in
>  
>
>>this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values.
>>
>>The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer
>>    
>>
>protection,
>  
>
>>privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives."
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>    
>>
>
>  
>