RE: [council] Point for Discussion
- To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:48:31 -0400
- Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <46965FFB.email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcfEp02WkqovyqmaTbya91fxEGIv+AAElj4Q
- Thread-topic: [council] Point for Discussion
I definitely agree that we should not overly complicate this but I do
believe that what was done previously may need to be tweaked. It is one
thing to use a proxy when the sole reason is because of inability to
attend; it is a very different situation when someone uses a proxy when
a conflict of interest exists. In the latter case, I personally think
that the Board approach is much more appropriate, i.e., to abstain. To
give a proxy to someone who would vote for a position that you would
support, seems out of order to me if you have a conflict of interest.
Taking that one step further, I also think it would be inappropriate for
a councilor to intentionally be absent from a meeting to be able to use
a proxy instead of having to abstain in a case where a conflict existed.
Regardless of whether proxies are reinstituted or not, it seemed like a
no brainer to me that no constituency that has developed a constituency
position on an issue should be denied a vote if a rep is unable to
attend a meeting. If we really believe in bottom-up processes, why
would anyone oppose this? Doing this could be as simple as having a
constituency officer (chair, vice chair, etc.) send an email to the
Council secretariat and/or chair in advance, with cc's to the
constituency reps, validating the constituency position and thereby
allowing any one rep to cast all votes on behalf of the constituency.
This would in no way require constituencies to adopt positions in
advance, but if they did, it would ensure that their positions were
fully supported whether all reps were in attendance or not.
The way the RyC has dealt with this issue when we vote on critical
issues where we want to make sure that all members have opportunity to
vote is that we allow the option of extending voting on our email list.
Not sure this would work for the Council. And like my proposal above,
there may be an issue with the Bylaws, as Philip noted.
"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: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:08 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
> I don't know that this level of rigor is required or
> necessary. The only problem with the previous proxy
> arrangements was that they weren't permitted under ICANN's
> bylaws. I don't believe that there was any indication of
> abuse, or other problems associated with this method, other
> than the fact that it wasn't technically permissible.
> I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that
> we need to construct anything more elaborate governing their
> use than we previously used. i.e. a proxy can only be
> assigned by the person who holds the vote and that the GNSO
> Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment by the
> person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting.
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the
> > Council and support it, but I would like to propose the
> following for
> > consideration by the Council.
> > It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their
> > votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken
> a position
> > on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot
> > participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to
> > allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for
> > the constituency provided an officer of the constituency
> confirms that
> > the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full constituency as
> > determined through the constituencies established processes. As I
> > envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote
> was announced
> > in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the
> > as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote;
> > otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as
> previously used.
> > I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticipated issue
> > but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we
> > encounter such a situation.
> > Thoughts?
> > I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows
> meeting but
> > simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that
> > follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
> > 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
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> > If you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.538.5492