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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

the bug is not the requirement for advance notice.  the bug as i see it is that 
advance notice has to be come long before and excludes the chance for a last 
minute proxy.

avri


avri


"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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.