Re: [gnso-osc-ops] GCOT Call Today?

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reply.  I agree that it would be good if we could have more 
people available for a discussion and also to have a response from ICANN Legal 
to discuss.  Unless I hear otherwise I'll postpone the meeting to next 
Wednesday, 16 December.

Best regards,

Julie


On 12/9/09 11:33 AM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Julie,

I also pinged Ray with that question this morning, but I recall he said he was 
going to be tied up all day today so that is probably why neither you nor I 
have heard from him.  As I will have to drop off the call at 12:45, and only 
Avri and I have confirmed - and we are awaiting the response from Legal - I 
would recommend that we postpone the call to next Wednesday as you suggest.  
Unless others feel strongly to the contrary.

Kind regards,

RA


Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001



www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859



________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 2009-12-09 11:19
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: gnso-osc-ops; Ken Bour
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] GCOT Call Today?

Hi Ray,

Will we be having a call today - or should we wait until next Wednesday when we 
may have a response from the Legal Department to consider?

Thanks!

Julie


On 12/9/09 11:11 AM, "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Ray and Team:

I wanted to let you know that Staff will pursue these questions with ICANN's
Legal Department, but we will not have any resolutions by the time of our
call today.

Thanks,

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 1:03 PM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Abstentions and Conflicts of Interest]

It appears to me we need ICANN Counsel advice on the concept of
"transferring a vote" from one individual to another individual.  I've been
trying to reason out the issue from the perspective that "the Constituencies
and/or SGs do, indeed, own/control their votes" on the thinking that this
places accountability where it best belongs being at the SG/Constituency
level (vs. at the Council level).  I wonder if we should seek ICANN Counsel
advice on this question too?  i.e. Does the SG/Constituency own/control
their own vote and does this have any significance to the concept of being
able to transfer a vote from individual to another individual when various
scripted conditions are met?  Thoughts?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:09 AM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Abstentions and Conflicts of Interest]


Hi Ray:

Please see my comments below to your questions.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:08 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [gnso-osc-ops] Abstentions and Conflicts of Interest]

Ken, sorry for the delay...and thank you for preparing this document for us.

I have 3 questions:

1.  In the case of an MCOI (Material Conflict of Interest), the primary
remedy is to seek transferring the vote to its NCA.  Is this correct?

[KAB] The primary and easiest remedy is shown in 5.2(a), that is, direct how
the vote should be entered.  If that will not eliminate the problem (e.g.
the attorney case), then transferring the vote is the next best option
(5.2(b)) versus losing it entirely.  Whether the vote should be vested with
the voting House NCA or another Councilor is subject to further discussion;
but, that is the way it is currently drafted.

2.  The option for a Stakeholder Group (or Constituency) to transfer the
vote of the conflicted rep to another rep of the same SG or Constituency is
not provided as a possible remedy...is this correct?

[KAB] Actually, it is provided as an option if the House NCA is
"unavailable."  Currently, I have that clause in parentheses, but it could
be pulled out and made explicit.

3.  In the example, it assumes the Contracted Party House chose not to have
its NCA vote on behalf of the conflicted rep, is this correct?

[KAB] True. The example is included as part of Section 5.4 which begins, "If
the conflict cannot be avoided after pursuing the above mechanisms..."  To
reach 5.4 requires that ALL remedies were attempted and none found
acceptable.  That should be an exceedingly rare occurrence assuming that
Legal has no objection to the vote transfer concept.

[KAB] An interesting question arises...  If the Constituencies and/or SGs
do, indeed, own/control their votes, could they transfer a vote from one
Councilor to another (including House NCA) in circumstances beyond COI?  For
example, assume a Councilor cannot register a vote due to serious illness
(e.g. unconscious).  If known in advance, following similar notification
procedures, could the vote be transferred?  If such conditions will be
allowed, perhaps it makes sense to write a generic "vote transfer "
procedure outside of the COI framework and then reference it from within the
above material.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Fassett [mailto:rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:17 AM
To: ray@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Fwd: [gnso-osc-ops] Abstentions and Conflicts of Interest]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Abstentions and Conflicts of Interest
From:    "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:    Thu, November 26, 2009 1:25 pm
To:      "'gnso-osc-ops'" <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:      "'Julie Hedlund'" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
         "'Robert Hoggarth'" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
         "'Liz Gasster'" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To:  GNSO Council Ops Team



As discussed in our teleconference yesterday and noted in Julie's action
item summary, I have prepared the attached DRAFT document, which is proposed
as a set of additional sections that could be incorporated into the GNSO
Operating Procedures on the subjects of Abstentions and Conflicts of
Interest.



.         A version of this material was first published by Staff as a
comment to the Public Forum on GNSO Operating Procedures
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2009/msg00001.html).


.         In the attached condensed version, I removed the
background/research portions of the original paper and included only the
applicable definition and procedure sections.

.         I attempted to capture my understanding of the team consensus on
various elements and, as a result, rewrote much of the content.   I enabled
track changes in the document so that team members can see how/where the
original material was altered.



I am happy to answer any questions concerning this draft document and to
continue supporting the team to help evolve and perfect these procedures.



Happy Thanksgiving where celebrated.



Ken Bour