Re: [council] Point for Discussion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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.