ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer

  • To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:50:12 -0700
  • Cc: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx, ray@xxxxxxxxx, avri@xxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Message_id: <20101027225012.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.aa961266fa.wbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would support a change. I do feel that there needs to be a clear
process for appointing a proxy but it could be less complicated and more
flexible. I would also like to point out that the RrSG (and previous
constituency) has never required that its Councilors vote a specific

I appreciate the work and thought that has gone into the current
process, but now that we have some experience with it I think it's clear
some changes are needed.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 5:56 pm
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Ray Fassett"
> <ray@xxxxxxxxx>,        "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
> This message is being forwarded to the Council list per Avri's request and 
> also to Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, so that the 
> two of them can hopefully comment on this issue in terms of what their 
> understanding is in this regard.
> The language approved by the Council seems pretty clear to me but Avri thinks 
> differently.  Whatever, it can be changed if the Council supports a change.
> Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:52 PM
> To: Ken Bour
> Cc: Mary Wong; Rosemary Sinclair; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck; Robert 
> Hoggarth; Liz Gasster; Ray Fassett; Julie Hedlund; Robin Gross
> Subject: Re: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
> (I have remove the GNSO Council from the CC, because I am not authorized to 
> post to the GNSO list.  However since Mr. Bour's email was sent to the GNSO 
> list, I request that someone who is so authorized forward this message on as 
> well.  )
> Dear Mr. Bour,
> As you know, I neither agree with your interpretation of the rules, nor 
> accept that the rules that were approved capture the proper meaning and sprit 
> of the intent of those creating the rules, but perhaps do reflect the zeal of 
> the author of the rules to create the perfect set of rules by which to 
> control the GNSO and its council members.  For example, I know that I spoke 
> at each and every opportunity of the unacceptability of a rule that forced a 
> council member, even when in the role of proxy, to vote in a particular way.  
> And yet, this somehow slipped into the rules.  It is fine for a stakeholder 
> group or constituency to make such a decision, but the policy should not as 
> it robs a constituency or stakeholder group of it independent processes.
> As some understood with the rules pertain to DOI, I feel that there were 
> mistakes introduced into the proxy rules, which I always spoke of as making 
> like much too complicated.  I have likened these rules to a Frankenstein's 
> monster on occasion as we need books, charts, forms and full time 
> self-appointed interpreters of the rules to make them even close to 
> intelligible.  We not have rules that the council and the stakeholder groups 
> spend more time on that they do on Policy issues.  and while there may be 
> some in some quarters who think that is a good thing, I am sure that many 
> don't.
> I also do not think it is appropriate for a staff member to become a rule 
> enforcer.  If the chair of the GNSO believes that I or anyone else in the 
> NCSG/NCUC  has misinterpreted or infracted the rules then it is for him to 
> inform us.  It is not, in my estimation the task of a contracted staff member 
> to become the rules police.  I ask you to remember that it is that Staff that 
> serves the GNSO and not the other way around.
> Thank you
> a.
> On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote:
> > Hi Mary and Rosemary: 
> >  
> > Chuck Gomes has apprised me that there are no motions scheduled for this 
> > Thursday's GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement 
> > any voting remedies such as proxy.   Since the subject of absence and proxy 
> > has arisen a few times, perhaps it would be helpful to use this opportunity 
> > to clarify the procedures that apply.   
> >  
> > I will briefly outline the steps below; however, may I ask that you also 
> > take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the 
> > voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention.  
> >  The procedures map is located at:  
> > http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains 
> > sample email contents for each of the various scenarios that can occur 
> > (e.g. planned absence, unplanned absence, abstention, vacancy).   The 
> > procedures map and the related online Abstention Notification Form 
> > (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) were 
> > both updated recently based on feedback received.   A separate announcement 
> > will be sent out detailing the changes that were made. 
> >  
> > The GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) do not provide an option for a sitting 
> > Councilor to transfer votes via proxy.  That authority rests with the 
> > applicable SG or Constituency.   To utilize the proxy voting remedy for a 
> > planned absence requires that:  
> > 1)      The Councilor send an email (sample contents are provided in the 
> > visual map) to his/her SG/C outlining the reason for the absence and 
> > itemizing the motions for which a remedy is sought.   [Note:  if any of the 
> > motions qualifies for absentee balloting, they should be specifically 
> > excluded presuming that the absent Councilor would vote on them 
> > (electronically) within the 72 hour period normally allowed]. 
> > 
> > 2)      An officer of the "Appointing Organization" transmit certain 
> > required information (ref. Section 4.5.4-b) to the GNSO Secretariat before 
> > the start of the meeting.   The information can be provided via the online 
> > form as referenced above. 
> > 3)      There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in 
> > the online form: 
> > a.      For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the 
> > "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative 
> > voting position per its Charter provisions; and
> > b.      For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is 
> > has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote.
> >  
> > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the "Appointing 
> > Organization" differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who 
> > were elected by the NCUC.   For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy 
> > would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); 
> > whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO 
> > Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been 
> > appointed by the NCSG.   
> >  
> > If there were motions to be voted on this Thursday; then the above steps 
> > would have to have been completed before the start of the Council meeting 
> > in order for the identified Councilor to register the proxy vote.   
> >  
> > In some situations, it is recognized that it may be difficult for the proxy 
> > conditions to be satisfied.  In those cases, another option that could be 
> > employed is the "Temporary Alternate (TA)" remedy.   There is no 
> > requirement for a prior voting position or directing a Councilor's vote; 
> > however, you should be aware that a TA cannot be a sitting (or 
> > term-limited) Councilor.   All of the TA conditions are covered in the 
> > visual map as well as the GOP (see Section 4.5.3-c). 
> >  
> > If there are any additional questions, I would be pleased to try and answer 
> > them.   The topic of voting remedies is due to be discussed (Item #5) on 
> > the Council agenda this Thursday.   Fortunately, Ray Fassett, Chair of the 
> > GCOT, will be on hand to provide an overview, philosophy, and rationale for 
> > the procedures that have been adopted.   Staff will also be available to 
> > answer any specific procedural questions that may arise. 
> >  
> > Finally, a short commercial advertisement:  Staff has a standing offer 
> > available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the 
> > voting remedies procedures.  
> >  
> > Regards,
> >  
> > Ken Bour
> >

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