RE: [gnso-osc] FOR ADOPTION June 4 GCOT Ops Section 4 - voting

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip, excellent feedback and again wish to reiterate my appreciation to
the thorough review of our work product by interested parties.

 

To Chuck's first point, I believe he has identified an unintended
consequence of the present wording, namely that a councilor wishing to
abstain from vote not count towards quorum.  I wish to offer this friendly
amendment to the wording to remedy:

 

"A Councilor abstaining on a vote, if present at the meeting, does not count
towards quorum calculationsfor any all actions of the GNSO Council; however,
the existence of a proxy does not count towards quorum calculations for any
action of the GNSO Council."

 

Here is the clean version of the sentence:

 

"A Councilor abstaining on a vote, if present at the meeting, does count in
quorum calculations; however, the existence of a proxy does not count
towards quorum for any action of the GNSO Council." 

 

To Chuck's second point, there is the option for a proxy vote to go to the
House NCA.  We ran through a number of what-if scenarios as it pertains to
inserting the proxy mechanism into the procedures.  On the one hand, we
recognized this to be a highly senstive subject over the years.  On the
other, we felt the benefits of vote by proxy should be incorporated.  We
decided we could not script every possible scenario within the RoP.  We
chose to take a conservative approach to its introduction while at the same
realizing the Rules should be a living document subject to real world
activity, frequency, and experiences with modifications appropriately based
on this from the language we have proposed.

 

To Chuck's third point, this is covered in 4.5.4-b (last bullet) which I
copied below:  

 

"For a Temporary Alternate, identification of the individual who will serve
as a substitute for the abstaining Councilor.  If not already published and
available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be
prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in
advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place."

 

Please let me know if this response suffices or any additional clarification
needed.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ray Fassett

Chair

GCOT

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:50 AM
To: 'Ray Fassett'
Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] FOR ADOPTION June 4 GCOT Ops Section 4 - voting

 

Ray,

would you be so kind as to answer these questions from Chuck?

While we await the response OSC approval is suspended.

Philip

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 9:38 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FOR ADOPTION June 4 GCOT Ops Section 4 - voting

Philip and all,

 

Please accept my apologies for not getting to this by June 4th.

 

Let me first compliment the writer of these procedures and the WT.  In my
opinion, they are very well written and excellent thought went into these.
Moreover, I believe that solve a very important problem that we have had in
the GNSO for several years.

 

Referring to the next to last paragraph of Section 4.5.3.b, Proxy Voting, I
want to make sure understand the rationale of the following: "A Councilor
abstaining on a vote does not count towards quorum calculations for any
action of the GNSO Council.  In addition, the existence of a proxy does not
count towards quorum calculations for any action of the GNSO Council."  Is
the assumption that the abstaining Councilor might still be present in the
meeting so the desire is to not duplicate the quorum count?  If so, that
makes sense.

 

I would also like to understand the rationale for the following , again from
Section 4.5.3.b, Proxy Voting: "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."  It
may not be a very frequent happening, but what if two Councilors from the
RySG needed to request a proxy vote; in that case it would seem easiest for
both Councilors to assign their proxy vote to the third RySG Councilor.  Why
is that not allowed?

 

In Section 4.5.4.a, 'Notification by Councilor', in the case of an alternate
Councilor, shouldn't we also add email address and submission of a Statement
of Interest from the Alternate?

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:10 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] FOR ADOPTION June 4 GCOT Ops Section 4 - voting

 

Dear OSC members,

FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION by June 4

 

Please find attached  a revised Section  4 of the GNSO operating manual on
voting and thresholds .

This has been revised by the GCOT based on earlier OSC input.

 

Below are notes from GCOT on how they addressed the issues raised (some of
which overlap with section  3.8  on  absences .

But for the process of OSC adoption this will be the subject of a separate
mail).

Philip

 

  _____  

To:  OSC Members

 

In early March 2010, in preparation for the ICANN Nairobi meetings, the GNSO
Council Operations Team (GCOT) submitted to the OSC a new Chapter 4.0-Voting
that it recommended be included within the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP).
As you will recall, the major purpose of that document was a new set of
provisions for handling abstentions.   Accompanying the new GOP chapter, the
GCOT also attached an Executive Summary which discussed the major
implications of abstentions as they apply to GNSO Council voting and
explained the GCOT's rationale in developing its recommendations.   

 

During the OSC's Nairobi session, several questions were raised by OSC
members that caused the GCOT to revisit and revise certain sections of the
document.   In addition, as a result of the team's continued deliberations,
additional changes have been made although the underlying architecture of
the abstention remedies remains intact.   

 

For the purposes of informing the OSC as to the revisions made, we thought
it might be useful to outline them in the following section versus
attempting to rewrite the original Executive Summary (attached), which
otherwise continues to be an accurate rationale for the GCOT's work on
abstentions. 

 

Summary of GCOT Amendments since Nairobi: 

 

1)      New Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies

 

At the time the original Section 4.5-Abstentions was drafted, it included
applying the Temporary Alternate remedy for certain absence conditions.
During its review, the General Counsel's office recommended that, instead of
confusing absences and abstentions, a new section be added to the GOP to
cover absences.  That section was not completed prior to Nairobi; however,
it is included in this transmission.   The title was subsequently changed
to, "Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies" as a result of a question raised
during Nairobi, that is, "Do Councilor vacancies cause the voting
denominator to change?" 

 

The GCOT recognized that, while vacancy procedures exist in the Bylaws
{Article X, Section 3(3)}, nothing is stated about what happens to the
voting thresholds in such situations.  Certainly a permanent vacancy would
ultimately be resolved by electing a replacement; however, there might be a
period of vacancy before the new Councilor takes his/her seat.  During such
transitions, the GCOT is recommending that the Temporary Alternate remedy be
made available to appointing organizations.  Section 3.8 was amended to
address temporary vacancies and, as OCS members will note, it also covers
planned and unplanned absences as well as leaves of absence.  

 

2)      A second issue raised in Nairobi was the need for a procedure that
allows Councilors to provide a reason or explanation when voting "Yes" or
"No."  There is a prevailing perception that to offer an explanation
requires an abstention.   To clarify this subject, the GCOT elected to
modify the GOP (see Section 4.3.2) to provide that, while Councilors are not
required to give a reason for a "No" or "Yes" vote, it is permissible and
such explanations will be recorded in the minutes.   

 

3)      A third question raised in Nairobi was, "Did the GCOT consider the
concept of a 'Permanent' Alternate?  Staff responded that General Counsel's
advice was to ensure that any application of "Temporary Alternate" be
incident specific and limited in duration; however, there is nothing in the
procedures that would prevent a SG/C from selecting an individual who is,
more or less, "on call" to become a TA whenever that remedy is needed.   

 

4)      After further deliberation, the GCOT determined that, due to the
unique challenges presented by the Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) in
not having "appointing organizations" as defined in the procedures, it would
be logistically impractical to involve the Houses in approving remedies for
abstentions.  The team decided to rewrite the provisions for House NCAs to
permit Proxy Voting and Temporary Alternate remedies that are automatically
activated (based on conditions and rules) without requiring action by the
Houses or the Nominating Committee.  

 

5)      The term "Appointing Organization" was needed in Section 3.8, but it
had only been defined in Section 4.5.   In order to permit the use of this
terminology throughout the GOP, Staff will be recommending a new
"Definitions" section to be included in Chapter 1.0.  Staff will also be
recommending several additional GOP improvements including a Table of
Contents, a Document Revisions section, and placeholders for new chapters
that are in process (e.g. Chapter 5.0-Statements and Disclosures of Interest
and Chapter 6.0-GNSO Work Prioritization).  

 

The GCOT hopes that the above summary of changes will be instructive for OSC
members in reviewing the revised Chapter 4.0-Voting and Section 3.8-Absences
& Vacancies.  

 

The GCOT's expectation is that the OSC, in its review process, may make
certain non-substantive amendments to these documents; however, it requests
that any substantive changes be remanded to the team for further
deliberation.  

 

If the OSC needs additional explanation or rationale for any of attached
procedures, please let us know.  On behalf of the GCOT members, we would
like to thank the members of the OSC for their support and feedback to our
efforts over the past 15 months.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ray Fassett

Chair

GCOT