RE: [council] Point for Discussion
- To: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>, <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:51:09 -0400
- Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcfE1ENH5bWBgFPQRPy08cpFPDlmtwAkMk/g
- Thread-topic: [council] Point for Discussion
Please note my comments below.
"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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:30 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
> Chuck and all,
> Are the bylaws clear about what (or whose views) a council
> member's vote expresses - whether it is an individual
> responsibility (e.g., based on the rep's understanding of the
> issue at hand and that of the values/interests of their
> counstituency, whcih can sometimes differ among reps of the same
> constituency) or the mere expression of constituency discipline?
> Or does one model apply for some types of decision, and the
> others to the rest? What are those types of decision?
No, I do not think the Bylaws define these things. It is up to each
constituency, which I think is fine.
> I think this is important to clarify. Again (I've said this
> before,) not all consituencies enjoy the same level of
> homogeneity as RyC, and you may wrongly be taking your
> assumptions as valid across borders.
I made no assumptions at all about how other constituencies handle this.
My recommendation did not suggest that any constituency should change
their mode of operation. But in cases where a constituency has
established a position using what ever procedures they use, it seems
very clear to me that that constituency should not lose a vote if one of
their reps cannot attend.
> If the bylaws are silent about that question, then this
> should be fixed one way or the other, or we should make it
> clear that it is up to each constituency to decide and
> mandate its reps the way it wants them to do their job in
> representing it in the council decision-making processes.
I didn't suggest any change to this.
> BTW, when I once asked about why one could no longer use
> proxy vote, one of the reasons Bruce gave me as explanation
> was that, council members need to engage in the whole
> discussion with their colleagues, hopefully in a constructive
> approach, in order to determine a final decision/position.
> Such reason would not make much sense within the context of
> constituency discipline.
> Unless one suspends any decision on that issue and gives at
> least a month to the reps for a pedagigical exercise while
> playing a detailed remake of the discussion to their
> constituency. If such such argument had any theoretical
> sense, the transaction costs would obviously be high enough
> to take it away.
> The irony is, sometimes like in san juan, I hear criticism of
> the council having a parliamentary mode of functioning, and
> some other times the parallel with a parliamentary model
> comes across as positive. It is totally irrational and confusing.
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
> > 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."
> > > -----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
> > > constituency
> > > > 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
> > > 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."
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ross Rader
> > > Director, Retail Services
> > > Tucows Inc.
> > >
> > > http://www.domaindirect.com
> > > t. 416.538.5492
> > >