RE: [gnso-osc-ops] New Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Regarding:

[AD] 5b.  i don't understand 1 vote per councilor.  does that mean that for
each ballot during a meeting they need a different person to act as proxy?
i know we talked about and i forget where we landed, but it seems somewhat
rather excessive.  dod you mean one proxy voter per councilor per meting?
like in 5c?

[KAB] ICANN Legal wanted to prevent a situation where one Councilor showed
up at a meeting with a fistful of proxies to execute for a particular vote.
The relevant language from Section 4.5.3-b is pasted below.  My
interpretation is that one Councilor could serve as proxy for another who
expressed an intention to abstain for multiple votes, but if two Councilors
registered abstentions for the same measure, then two different proxies
would be required.   

I don't understand the "fistful of proxies" statement.  What is the harm if
the proxies have been given in good faith"?  I agree with Ken's
interpretation that one Councilor would serve as proxy for the other and
that if two abstentions were given for the same measure new proxies would
need to be found, BUT don't see any reason why a third Councilor could not
deliver his/her vote as well as vote the two proxy votes.  ICANN legal needs
to clarify this....

Personally, I think we are drilling down much too deep on all of these
issues.  Like the proverbial onion, we can only find another layer below the
one we are looking at and at some point we have to stop.  How can we expect
others, with fresh eyes, to follow this when we ourselves are struggling
under the weight of all of these words?

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:21 PM
To: 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-osc-ops'
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] New Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences


Avri and GCOT Members:

Please see my thoughts embedded below labeled "[KAB]".  I preceded Avri's
original comments with "[AD]" to make it easier to follow.  

Ken Bour

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:17 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] New Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences

hi,

[AD] aside: can't wait to see how they handle those who abstain from
approving minutes because they were either absent or just did note read the
minutes.  i guess they can just delay the vote until the following meeting.
but that is not the point of this email

[KAB] One of the changes introduced in this version (I hope an improvement)
was to make it clearer that EVERY abstention does not have to be remedied.
The SG/C reserves the right to exercise a remedy when it deems advisable;
otherwise, the abstention can simply be recorded with its effective "No"
outcome.  The case of approving Council minutes appears to be one of many
voting situations for which an abstention would probably just be allowed to
stand unremedied.  

[AD] Issues:  in 5a, 5b - i do not think we should be requiring consensus
(whatever that means in this context) by the SG/ Cs.  How they do this is
their call.  They might decide it is enough for their executive to handle
it, or their policy committee, or ...

[KAB] The requirement for consensus originated with ICANN Legal.  We could
possibly revisit that constraint with Dan, but his original concern was that
there should be evidence of SG/C support for a position that results in
Voting Direction or Proxy.  As you note, the procedures do not define
"consensus," which could give the SG/Cs some flexibility within their own
charters.  

[AD] 5b.  i don't understand 1 vote per councilor.  does that mean that for
each ballot during a meeting they need a different person to act as proxy?
i know we talked about and i forget where we landed, but it seems somewhat
rather excessive.  dod you mean one proxy voter per councilor per meting?
like in 5c?

[KAB] ICANN Legal wanted to prevent a situation where one Councilor showed
up at a meeting with a fistful of proxies to execute for a particular vote.
The relevant language from Section 4.5.3-b is pasted below.  My
interpretation is that one Councilor could serve as proxy for another who
expressed an intention to abstain for multiple votes, but if two Councilors
registered abstentions for the same measure, then two different proxies
would be required.   

"No GNSO Council Member is permitted to exercise more than one proxy vote
for any specific action/motion before the Council.  If an appointing
organization finds itself with more than one abstention situation to be
remedied, the appointing organization must allocate its proxy votes to as
many other Councilors as required such that no individual Councilor
registers more than one proxy vote at a time."

[AD] 6. even though they count as no, they should be listed as abstention.
no reason to add intent to actuality. 

[KAB] My "architecture" email was intended only to be a crisp outline of the
key principles and features.  The actual language from the procedure reads
as follows (see 4.5.4-c):  "If an abstention cannot be avoided after
pursuing the remedies provided in Paragraph 4.5.3, then the Councilor may
abstain from voting and an 'Abstention' will be entered into the record
along with a reason."  

[AD] A&V 1.iii.a still seems bizarre to me

[KAB] This response does not attempt to address the "bizarre-ness" aspect;
however, just to clarify...  Even though a planned absence could result in a
declared abstention, there is no requirement that it be remedied by the
SG/C.  If the matter is not eligible for absentee balloting, but is
otherwise important to the SG/C, then it could have its vote registered,
presumably via proxy (simplest option).  In my role as Staff support, this
solution seems consistent with the abstention architecture although, if the
GCOT ultimately decides that abstentions should not be permitted for planned
absences, the procedures can certainly be redrawn to disallow them.  Stated
another way, abstentions could only be permitted when a Councilor is present
at a meeting.  An example might help illustrate the type of situation that
could occur under this scenario.  Assume a Councilor registered an intention
to abstain from a vote, in advance, with the expectation of attending the
scheduled Council meeting.  The SG/C elected to remedy the abstention with a
proxy and followed the procedures in time to enable that vote to be
registered.  Prior to the meeting, the Councilor suddenly discovered that
he/she would be unable to attend and notified the Secretariat (i.e. planned
absence).  Would the remedy then be revoked and the abstention recorded (and
treated as a "No" vote) because attendance is required in order to abstain?
While such hypothetical examples may appear improbable, I recommend that the
team think carefully through such permutations to be sure that it likes the
outcomes because, in my experience, they will be encountered in due course.


a.

On 13 Apr 2010, at 13:13, Ken Bour wrote:

[KAB snipped forwarded email due to unreadable text formatting.  The
original email is available on the GCOT list dated 13 April 2010]