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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

In the end we need to remind ourselves what is it that we are trying to do
in relation to the bigger picture.  Allowing proxies to be handed off at
will was not the objective of the Working Group that focused on this aspect;
rather the focus was to put a process in place to ensure that all SGs votes
count in the new bicameral regime that was imposed upon the GNSO after the
most recent review and restructuring.  There was a great deal of debate and
discussion around this as I recall, having been a member of that Working
Group along with Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, Ray and others.

The SCI needs to consider how this process can be streamlined in light of
the operating procedures of the various constituencies that make up the SGs,
but it should not modify a long-considered process simply to accommodate
something that could well be better modified within a constituency or SG.

Food for thought...

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

 

-----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 5:33 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting


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.