ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-osc-ops]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-osc-ops] Absentee Voting an Abstentions

  • To: <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Absentee Voting an Abstentions
  • From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:35:57 -0400

GCOT Members:

 

After digesting the feedback to my earlier attempt at rationalizing absentee
voting and abstentions holistically, I would like to reconstitute my
original presentation and, in the process, correct certain
mischaracterizations.   As your primary Staff support on these matters and,
having drafted much of the content, my objective is to assist the GCOT in
ensuring that the entire set of procedures maintains integrity and that
related sections (e.g. 3.8, 4.4, and 4.5) complement and support each other.


 

The following points are provided in an effort to examine the role of
absentee voting in the larger context of the team's work on abstentions.  

 

1)      I believe that two key principles underlying the GCOT's Abstentions
procedures are:

a)      Wherever possible, SG/Cs should not lose opportunities to have votes
cast by their Council representatives.

b)     No provisions have been approved for altering voting denominators;
therefore, if a Councilor is not able to exercise his/her vote, a remedy
should be available to SG/Cs, whenever practicable.  

 

[KB Note:  In my earlier message, I was trying to reflect broad principles
versus rules.  I acknowledge that there is an entire class of circumstances
for which remedies cannot be exercised practically.   According to Section
4.5, remedies for abstentions require advanced notification to work
properly.  Any time a Councilor does not vote and the circumstances are not
known and announced ahead of time, an abstention/remedy is infeasible.  For
example, assume a Councilor actually attends a teleconference and, just
before a vote is taken, all of his/her connections are severed and not
restored until after the meeting adjourns.   Although there may have been an
intention to vote, circumstances abruptly prevented it.   In that case and
many others I can conjure up (e.g. personal injury, accidents, forgot the
meeting, overslept, etc.) a Councilor would neither attend nor vote; but,
because they were not planned events, there would be no opportunity to
register an abstention in advance and seek a remedy.  The only option that
is currently provided, in such unforeseen instances, is absentee voting;
otherwise, the vote is simply not cast.]

 

2)      The procedures in 3.8 and 4.5 now cover the following categories
that have been identified thus far:

.         Volitional and Obligational Abstentions

.         Absences:  Incidental and Long-Term 

.         Vacancies 

 

[Note:  As a result of rethinking certain aspects of incidental absence, I
drafted additional changes to Section 3.8 (attached KBv4) that now deal
specifically with planned vs. unplanned instances.  Also, Ron Andruff's
earlier suggestions relating to this section, discussed via the email list,
have been made in this version.]

  

3)      As the procedures are currently drafted (and they can, of course, be
changed), a case of planned incidental absence is handled in one of two
ways:  (1) absentee voting within the time limit or (2) registering an
abstention and seeking a proxy or TA remedy.   For unplanned absences,
Section 3.8 now provides:  (1) absentee voting within the time limit or (2)
the vote is not cast and no voting denominator adjustments are made.   

 

4)      Based on recent GCOT list emails, interest has been expressed in
restricting absentee voting to a narrow set of conditions that might include
important GNSO votes and, possibly, hardship cases.   In keeping with the
principles in #1 and earlier GCOT decisions, it makes sense to me that
abstentions and appropriate remedies would be permitted for planned
absences.   If not, then each time a Councilor anticipates being absent,
his/her vote would not be cast and the SG/C's voting opportunity would be
lost, which seems inconsistent with principle #1a.   In essence, a new "gap"
could be perceived to exist in that a class of missed voting opportunities
(planned absences) would (a) not be remediable and (b) the voting
denominator would also not change.   For unplanned absences,
abstentions/remedies are not plausible because there would be no advanced
knowledge and corresponding opportunity to apply a remedy.  

 

5)      Assuming, then, that abstentions/remedies would be allowed for
planned incidental absences, is there a net gain or improvement to the GNSO
using this mechanism vs. absentee voting?   

 

Analysis:  one concern expressed thus far is that absentee voting may tend
to promote intentional absence vs. attending meetings in person.  Assume
that a hypothetical Councilor is inclined not to attend a session because
absentee voting is perceived to be a convenient alternative.   Is it that
much more difficult to register an abstention and ask the SG/C to apply a
remedy?   The Councilor could easily send an email to the Secretariat with a
copy to the SG/C to this effect, "I cannot attend Council meeting on [date]
due to [reason]; therefore, please register my abstention for all votes
taken.  My SG/C will decide and notify you if they wish to invoke any voting
remedies in these matters."  Since abstaining is, arguably, no more
difficult than absentee voting, there may be no material effect on in-person
attendance.  On the other hand, if only an abstention is available as the
sole remedy, it may be perceived as increasing the amount of work that SG/Cs
are asked to do in processing incidental absences that could otherwise be
handled by a simpler and more efficient absentee balloting method.  

 

6)      The importance of Councilor attendance, in person, is emphasized in
Sections 3.8.1 and 4.5.1.   

 

I appreciate various team members' thoughtful responses to my earlier memo.
Those engagements have helped clarify my own thinking about the differences
between planned and unplanned absences.   I hope that this edited rationale
and the new revisions in Section 3.8 are helpful in the team's continuing
deliberations on the proper role of absentee balloting within the GNSO.     

 

Ultimately, if the GCOT elects to recommend constraints to absentee voting
(Section 4.4), I stand ready to assist in drafting suitable language and to
ensure that other related sections of the procedures are appropriately
amended for consistency.  

 

Ken Bour

Attachment: Section 3.8-Absences (KBv4-RAv1).doc
Description: MS-Word document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy