ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:25:25 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <B7ACC01E42881F4981F66BA96FC14957035B16DE@WIC001MITEBCLV1.messaging.mit>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcoA6I8QIXuM1IeWT62Bw6t+hrIG6AAXdr2gABdIyoAAIkpyoACYmZLQABBujQAAB23v8AAAjIggAAOjpeAAFfYlcA==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies

I agree that it is an issue that should be addressed when the current
workload abates.

I think it's important that we consider this from an another angle,
namely, avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The appearance - or
perception of the appearance - of impropriety can be just as damaging as
the actual existence of impropriety.  From a conflicts perspective, it
seems to me that allowing a Councilor who has a conflict to vote, albeit
not in a personal capacity, can certainly create the appearance of
impropriety - here, a conflict.  It's certainly possible that some could
attribute that perception not only to the Councilor, but also to her/his
constituency and the Council itself.  I think Bruce's suggestion of a
mechanism for temporary appointments of councilors is a good one.  It
certainly would address the appearance of impropriety issue.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:01 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest -

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.

Bruce Tonkin

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>