RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened 
with the NCSG.  On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to 
the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the 
first vote" of the meeting is way too late.  It suggests that the proxy will 
arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then 
simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion.  My 
understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because 
the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and 
then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.

I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug."   I gather that with the 
structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working 
independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to 
everyone, I decided to respond.

Thank you,
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting


Hi,


I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try.  In any case I wanted to 
lay out my issues related to this topic.

I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or 
changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC.  
Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: 
"the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the 
rules."

And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly 
parapharase the important quote)

However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no 
matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules.

The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long 
standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not 
beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was 
known about.  And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do.  
What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a 
process.

The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in 
advance of an absence.  But it is a time consuming practice that is labor 
intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e  Glen 
has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then 
inform the g-council of the proxy.

We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they 
are already at.

What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before 
the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - 
the procedure does not work that quickly.

I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day 
before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts 
works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't.  Anyone who wrote a 
computer program like that would need to fix the bug.

I think part of the problem is in the procedure:

Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO 
secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding 
of the message.  If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat 
notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the 
problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed.  The policy calls 
for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up 
to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced 
by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to 
mostly remedy the problem without making a change.

But I also thimk we should consider ammending  the process to make sure the 
window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we 
could recommend modifying the policy to replace:

"
Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before 
the start of the relevant meeting.
"

to

"
Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before 
the first vote of the relevant meeting.
"

So I recommend that

a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the 
GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same 
time as the secretariat

b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.

I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point 
each and every  SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is 
currently exists in our policy+procedures

thanks

avri


Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Dear SC members,
>
>Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for
>our discussion during today's call.  See the current procedures below.
>Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating
>to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011.  The
>purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and
>avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
>
>The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to
>proxies.  In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member
>couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in
>the formal way according to the rules.  So one of the questions was
>whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group
>could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the
>proxy.  In addition the question should be dealt with whether the
>council has to accept this request.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Julie
>
>
>4.6   Proxy Voting
>
>An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy
>Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the
>Proxy Holder).
>
>The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of
>three types:
>
>1.     An instruction from the Proxy Giver’s appointing organization
>(if applicable), or if none;
>
>2.     An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of
>either;
>
>3.     The Proxy Holder’s own conscience.
>
>a.      Multiple Proxies
>
>A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more
>than one Proxy Giver.
>
>b.      Quorum
>
>An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy
>has been established.  A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary
>Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3>  below) if present, would count
>toward quorum.
>
>c.      Proxy Notification
>
>A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should
>indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable,
>be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a
>proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the
>start of the relevant meeting.
>
>Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a
>Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote.  In all
>cases the most recent notification takes precedence.




________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.