Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Team Guidance re: Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences?

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ray,

Just a question.  Have the SOI/DOI and Term limits documents that I sent to you 
previously gone to the OSC?

Thanks!

Julie


On 5/3/10 4:55 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I believe below are the remaining open items?  Anyone disagree?


  GOP   Section 3.8: Vacancies and Absences   Addt’l changes under team review. 
Targeted to be sent to OSC by 1 June
  GOP   Chapter 4: Section 4.1: Quorum Section 4.2: Voting Thresholds Section 
4.3: Motions and Votes Section 4.4: Absentee Voting Section 4.5: Abstentions   
Sent to OSC for consideration in Nairobi.   Addt’l changes being made due to 
OSC feedback.   Targeted to be sent to OSC by 1 June.
  Exec Summary & Abstentions Analysis-2009   Companions to Chapter 4-Voting   
Sent to OSC on 6 March.   Resend to OSC after Chapter 4 is ready for 
resubmission?



________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:49 PM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Team Guidance re: Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences?

Ken,

That is precisely why I asked our Chair for an agenda to advise what work is 
still on the table, from his perspective.  For my part, I believe we are close 
to completing our task, but want to be sure that we indeed get everything 
completed prior to the deadline you noted.

Kind regards,

RA


Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:33 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Team Guidance re: Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences?

GCOT Members:

There is a GCOT meeting coming up this Wednesday, 5 May, and I am honestly not 
sure what more I should be doing with respect to Chapter 4.0-Voting and Section 
3.8-Absences.

There were a number of concerns raised to my latest version (circulated on 13 
April), which I attempted to address on the list; however, the last set of 
comments suggested that we have drilled down “much too deep” and there are “way 
too many words” being expressed.

I am reminded that the OSC deadline for closure on the GCOT’s outstanding work 
is 1 June – 4 weeks away.   I want to be helpful and proactive; however, at 
this point, I would appreciate some guidance from the team concerning how to 
revise specific language in these two remaining sections.

Thanks,

Ken Bour


From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:16 PM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] New Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences

Dear all,

Having reviewed the documents, my responses (apart from those sent in the 
Avri-Ken string noted earlier) are as follows:

Section 4 Voting

4.4 Absentee Voting -- AGREED
4.5.2 Abstention Categories – To KB’s comment: NO, I do NOT AGREE that the GCOT 
should add more language to the volitional abstentions
4.5.2.b. Disclaimer – need to replace “Declaration” with “Disclosure” of 
interest pursuant to Metallitz note on DOI.  Terms must be consistent.
Re: 3rd sentence: GNSO Councilors do not have a fiduciary responsibility to act 
in the best interests of ICANN in discharging their responsibilities on the 
Council.  This language must be modified.  A Councilor, at the very least, must 
have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their SG/C.  
Councilors are not independent actors voting according to their personal views 
(excluding the NCA’s, of course).
4.5.3 Remedies – AGREED
4.5.4 Procedures -- AGREED

Section 3.8 Absences  -- Minor edits AGREED
           Want clarification re: Avri-Ken string, i.e.,
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....

Kind regards,

RA


Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:14 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] New Section 4-Voting and 3.8-Absences

GCOT Members:

As promised, attached are the latest documents for Chapter 4.0-Voting and 
Section 3.8-Absences & Vacancies.  I have indicated below the major changes 
made since the versions sent on 24 March; however, I recommend that GCOT 
members read both documents critically from beginning to end.

Chapter 4-Voting:
1)      Section 4.4-Absentee Voting was restored to its original language and 
modified as noted.

2)      Additional changes throughout 4.5 to improve clarity (see redlines and 
embedded comments)


Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies:
1)      Simplified structure to eliminate redundancy, e.g. one Paragraph 
3.8.4-Remedy instead of two duplicates (3.8.2-c and 3.8.3-b) previously.  For 
ease of reading, I did not redline those structural changes.

2)      The language that Ron asked be clarified concerning “All Subjects 
Permitted” has been incorporated (see 3.8.4-a).


I have also attempted to outline (below) the architecture of the Abstentions 
procedures as well as Absences/Vacancies.   I summarized key principles and 
supported each numbered bullet with quoted/referenced text (italics), where 
applicable.   I hope that this exposition will make it a bit easier to 
understand the critical components and logic so that the GCOT can decide if 
this architecture remains the approach that it wants to recommend to the GNSO.

I look forward to your comments.


Ken Bour

Abstentions Architecture:
1)      Voting denominators should never be altered.

The GNSO Council has not established any provision that would permit the voting 
thresholds and calculations to be altered, for example, by reducing the 
denominator due to an abstention (§4.5.3).
2)      All abstentions are de facto “No” votes.

The voting thresholds are calculated based upon the total membership of each 
House.  According to existing rules, any abstention, regardless of type or 
category, would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by 
default, an abstention functions as a negative (or “No”) vote (§4.5.3).
3)      SG/Cs should have the opportunity to register a “Yes,” discretionally, 
whenever a Councilor cannot or chooses not to exercise a vote.

Given the Council’s size and the voting thresholds that have been defined, it 
is important that each Stakeholder Group (or Constituency, where applicable) 
vote decisively, through its appointed or elected Councilors, on every matter 
that is before the Council for action (§4.5.1).
4)       “Volitional” abstentions, although acknowledged and permitted, 
including remedies, are discouraged.

Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups are encouraged to provide sufficient 
guidance, assistance, education, and direction, where applicable, to avoid 
circumstances that might otherwise result in a volitional abstention (§4.5.2-a).
Councilors should request and receive sufficient information, including support 
from their Constituencies or Stakeholder Groups, as appropriate, so Councilors 
may carry out their responsibilities.  When a problem manifests itself or some 
issue does not make sense, a Councilor has a duty to inquire into the 
surrounding facts and circumstances and seek guidance (§4.5.1-b).
5)      The following remedies are provided for any abstention and should be 
considered and selected in order.

The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize the 
effect of such potential abstentions on Council voting such that the appointing 
Stakeholder Group or Constituency may exercise the vote represented by the 
abstaining Councilor (§4.5.3).
In general, the remedies proceed from simplest in execution to more 
logistically complex and should, under most circumstances, be evaluated and 
selected in the order provided (§4.5.3).
a)      Voting Direction [Note:  useful for most “volitional” abstentions]

o      Requires consensus position in SG/C

b)      Proxy [Note:  useful for either abstention category plus incidental 
absences when absentee balloting is not prescribed]

o      Requires consensus position in SG/C

o      Does not count toward quorum

o      Incident specific and time-bound

o      Limit:  1 proxy vote per Councilor

c)      Temporary Alternate [Note: useful when consensus position cannot be 
achieved and for longer-term substitutions including Leaves of Absence (LOA) 
and vacancies]

o      Exclusion:  does not apply to NCA

o      Counts toward quorum (if regular Councilor is not present)

o      Incident specific and time-bound

o      Can only participate and vote on specific matters (except when 
instituted for LOA or vacancy)

o      Limit:  1 TA per Councilor at a time

6)      Abstentions that are not remedied, either by SG/C choice or, possibly, 
because the remedy could not be activated in time, are recorded and treated as 
“No” votes.

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. If the reason for the abstention warrants such 
action (e.g. obligational abstention), the Councilor shall be recused and not 
participate in discussions on the affected topic(s) or otherwise attempt to 
influence other Council members nor shall he/she vote on any action attendant 
to the matter for which the abstention conditions are present.  An abstention 
shall not affect quorum requirements or calculations nor will it reduce the 
denominator in any vote tabulations for the affected House (§4.5.4-c).
At the Legal Department’s recommendation, instead of handling absence 
conditions within the voting remedies procedures, a separate Section 3.8 has 
been drafted (attached).  Its architecture is also outlined below to show how 
certain remedies apply.
Absences and Vacancies:
1)      Incidental Absences:

a)      Planned absences defined and remedies:

It is understood that, from time to time, it may be necessary for a GNSO 
Council member to miss a scheduled meeting due to conflicting personal or 
professional obligation or other planned event that cannot be reasonably 
altered (§3.8.1-a).
                                                                                
     i.     Notify GNSO Secretariat in advance

                                                                                
   ii.     If absentee voting applies and can be utilized, stop.

                                                                                
  iii.     If absentee voting does not apply or circumstances do not permit its 
use, then Councilor should declare an abstention and continue with abstention 
remedies (§4.5).

b)      Unplanned absences defined and remedies:

Occasionally, it will be necessary for a GNSO Council member to miss a 
regularly scheduled meeting due to sudden illness, accident, injury, or other 
unforeseen event that cannot reasonably be anticipated.
                                                                                
     i.     If absentee voting applies and can be utilized, stop.

                                                                                
   ii.     If absentee voting does not apply or circumstances do not allow for 
its use, then vote is NOT cast nor is denominator altered.

2)      Leaves of Absence (LOA):

a)      Planned: Councilor anticipates missing 2 or more consecutive meetings

                                                                                
     i.     Notify GNSO Secretariat and SG/C; continue with (4) below.

b)      Unplanned: Councilor misses 2 meetings consecutively without prior 
notification

                                                                                
     i.     Secretariat notifies SG/C that “effective” LOA has been satisfied; 
continue with (4) below.

3)      Vacancies:

a)      Resignation or other permanent vacancy.

b)      Bylaws call for replacement according to the Stakeholder Group Charter 
(Article X, Section 3(3)).

                                                                                
     i.     During transition from vacancy until election of replacement 
Councilor, continue with (4) below.


4)      Remedy: Temporary Alternate

a)      Same conditions as 5-c above except that subjects and participation are 
not limited, i.e., TA may act in all matters that would have otherwise occupied 
the absent or vacant Councilor.