Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's true to some extent, Wolf-Ulrich, though for clarity's sake
here's what the NCSG process amounts to: there is a membership-wide
conference call held before each GNSO Council meeting (usually a day or
so in advance), during which each upcoming vote before the Council is
discussed and a position, where possible, determined based on
discussions that include prior listserv postings. Councilors can "vote
their own conscience" but this does not generally happen where there is
a clear SG position. In all cases, a Councilor that needs a proxy
informs his/her proxy as well as the rest of the NCSG Councilors and the
SG Chair (usually through our policy committee email list or Skype group
chat) of his/her vote so the whole policy committee knows how each
Councilor will be voting.
 
In the case that raised the issue, the need for a proxy did not arise
until the very last minute. The voting would have been the same - and
known to all NCSG Councilors and members listening in to the Council
call - regardless of whether the Councilor or her proxy was the one
casting the vote. The problem was therefore one purely of timing and the
relatively clunky nature of the form-filling and notification that is
currently required, which does not allow for flexibility in these types
of exceptional circumstances.
 
Any amendments we suggest must of course be on an exceptional,
emergency basis. What I'd like to see is the ability to accept a proxy
on such a basis if it is done prior to the discussion of the agenda item
in question (i.e. sometime before the vote - the proxy ought to be
present for the pre-vote discussion), and provided there is
documentation or other evidence that can show that a proxy was properly
appointed according to the relevant SG processes. 
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <avri@xxxxxxx>,
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/28/2012 2:16 AM
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting

If I recollect correctly from the former working group discussions
there is a difference in how the various SGs/constituencies may handle
proxies in their respective charters. E.g. the ISPs have imposed a kind
of "mandatory voting" meaning that the council rep (and her/his proxy if
coming from the ISP constituency) has to follow the constituency
instruction in voting. So a certain time is needed to hand over the
proxy including the voting instruction and the rationale of. To my
knowledge e.g. the NCSG process is different in that respect since not
requiring an instructive vote.
I wonder whether this could be taken into consideration during the
discussion.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ron
Andruff
Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Mai 2012 16:50
An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting


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.