RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think you are correct Tim.  I believe a GNSO conflict policy will have to be 
somewhat different than the Board's for the reaons you cite.  In my opinion, 
the most important thing is declaration of possible conflicts.  I don't 
personally think, especially in the GNSO, that possible conflicts should 
necessarily require recusal from voting and I definitely do not believe that 
possible conflicts should preclude participation.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:45 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of 
> interest - proxies
> 
> How do we define *conflict of interest.* For example, if we 
> define it the same way the Board does we may have to exclude 
> entire constituencies from the majority of Council votes.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest
> - proxies
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 8:15 am
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Stephane,
> 
> The problems you describe need to be dealt with but I believe 
> it is possible to do so in an effective and transparent 
> manner. In other words, I think they are solvable.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane 
> Van Gelder
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:40 AM
> > To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
> > Subject: Re: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict 
> of interest 
> > - proxies
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Bruce,
> > 
> > Both you and Chuck make interesting points. Especially in 
> the light of 
> > recent discussions we've had in the Council about how 
> Councillors can 
> > best represent the views of their constituencies. There's no doubt 
> > that if a constituency instructs its Councillors to vote a 
> certain way 
> > on a certain issue, said Councillors will be put in a very 
> difficult 
> > situation if they have a conflict of interest on that issue.
> > 
> > One (easy?) way to resolve this might simply be for Councillors to 
> > state that they are voting as instructed by the 
> constituency and not 
> > as a reflection of their own personal views. This could then be 
> > recording in the vote summary that goes to the Board for 
> instance, or 
> > in the transcript that is made publicly available.
> > 
> > However, I see several problems. The first one is that 
> Councillors are 
> > generally assumed to vote for their constituencies anyway, so why 
> > stress that fact again? And what if a Councillor then votes without 
> > stating the above, either because he forgets to, or because 
> he doesn't 
> > have clear instructions from his Constituency? Would people 
> naturally 
> > assume his vote is a reflection of his own personal views 
> and accuse 
> > him or her of putting those first?
> > 
> > It's a difficult one.
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > Le 15/07/09 06:01, « Bruce Tonkin »
> > <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hello Chuck,
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> I agree with you that we should consider additional special 
> > >> situations with regard to voting, but we will probably
> > have to deal
> > >> with them after we get finished with the huge current workload.
> > > 
> > > Sounds fair to me - just thought I would mention it, while we are 
> > > considering voting rules.
> > > 
> > >> It
> > >> doesn't seem to me that a constituency (or in the future a 
> > >> stakeholder
> > >> group) should lose a vote because their elected councilor has a 
> > >> personal conflict of interest.
> > > 
> > > Agreed. But at the same time I do think the issue of personal 
> > > conflicts of interest need to be taken into account. So I think a 
> > > mechanism that allows a constituency to retain their votes, but 
> > > prevents an individual from being put in a difficult
> > situation is worthwhile.
> > > 
> > > Another example in the past is how to handle elections to
> > the Board,
> > > where a candidate is a sitting Council member. There has been a 
> > > mechanism used in the past where the constituency can
> > appoint a person
> > > to vote on behalf of the constituency, in place of the
> > Council member.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Bruce Tonkin
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
>