AW: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

1. I'm inclined to accept  what the council team has elaborated and Philip has 
brought into purified and understandable wording. 
2. The appointing organisation's (formal) oversight role can be understood from 
the fact that it is the body transferring the vote to a Proxy Holder. From my 
council experience establishing an a-priori declaration of the voting position 
could narrow down the Proxy Holder's flexibility in acting and reacting e.g. 
during discussions of amendments in order to find compromise solutions. That's 
why for example the ISPCP charter on the one hand is binding councilors to the 
"ISPC position" and on the other hand provides them flexibility when not 
forseeable circumstances appear.

Once the abstention/proxy voting is accepted by the council the flow chart 
should be adapted accordingly.

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
Avri Doria
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. April 2011 05:44
An: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion


Hi,

I prefer the alternate as was presented by the GNSO Council team that worked on 
this issue.  I find the language offered by Mr. Bour to be difficult to parse 
and still to put undue requirements on a SG/C.

While it is perhaps necessary now to inquire of how a proxy will vote in order 
to comply with the current proxy rules, that is not a favored position.  As far 
as the NCSG is concerned, it is sufficient to appoint the proxy and make sure 
that she or he understands the issues and the NCSG's communities' diversity of 
views on the subject.  We would prefer for the council member to be free to 
listen to the debate in a council meeting, including any discussion that occurs 
using back channels during the meeting, and to be able to decide to do the 
right thing based on the full discussions as opposed to doing something they 
had to commit themselves to before having had a chance to hear the full debate 
of all GNSO and Liaison positions.  In the NCSG the council members will know 
that any vote will be questioned after the fact in the expectation that the 
vote can be explained.  We do not need an a-priori declaration, an a-posteriori 
explanation with the concomitant responsibilities of!
  such an explanation is sufficient.  Personally I do not understand why anyone 
would something other than this.

As I indicated, the text which I believe has been sent to the OSC by the GNSO 
team that worked on the language, is preferable.

Thank you

a.





On 31 Mar 2011, at 23:13, Ken Bour wrote:

> Dear OSC Members:
>  
> ICANN Policy Staff have been following today's discussion on the proxy voting 
> matter with interest and an eagerness to assist.  
>  
> We understand the core concern with the proxy rules as documented in the GNSO 
> Operating Procedures (GOP).  In essence, the proxy remedy currently requires 
> that the appointing organization (a) establish a voting position in advance 
> and (b) instruct the proxy Councilor on how to vote.  Not all SG/C Charters 
> support these actions and, as the OSC list dialogue reflects, it appears that 
> various GNSO organizations have been constrained to find "creative" ways to 
> comply with the requirements as adopted.   
>  
> Julie, Rob and I have evaluated the changes proposed by Philip and would like 
> to offer an alternative solution that, we believe, resolves the fundamental 
> issue with minimal text amendments to the GOP. 
>  
> In place of the current proxy requirement (see attached Par. 4.5.3-b-i), 
> Staff suggests amending the original language to state: 
>  
> The appointing organization's Charter governs whether a proxy Councilor is 
> (or may be) required to vote "Yes" or "No" on any particular motion.  To 
> invoke the proxy remedy, the appointing organization shall affirm that any 
> voting position to be exercised by the designated proxy Councilor has been 
> confirmed and communicate such affirmation to the GNSO Secretariat (see 
> Paragraph 4.5.4) in advance of the vote. 
>  
> Rationale:  The above language would eliminate the two troublesome 
> requirements and replace them with an alternate which simply involves the 
> appointing organization affirming that it has been informed and acknowledges, 
> in advance, what the voting position(s) will be.  The appointing organization 
> may still direct the specific vote if its Charter permits; however, there is 
> no requirement to do so.  The purpose of the affirmation would be to 
> reinforce the appointing organization's oversight role in the proxy voting 
> process without constraining or burdening its internal procedures.  
>  
> The attached document contains minor text changes (redlined) to two 
> paragraphs, 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, that will enable the above amendment.  If you 
> agree with this approach, no changes would be required to Section 
> 3.8-Absences.  In addition, Staff would also recommend updating the online 
> Abstention Notification Form 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) to 
> reflect this change, if approved by the OSC.  The current proxy form 
> questions are shown below:
> <image001.png>
> Staff suggests that the form be modified to have only one question as follows:
>  
> I affirm that a voting position has been confirmed on the matter(s) at issue 
> pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws.   Y or N
>  
> We welcome further dialogue on this suggestion. 
>  
> Respectfully,
>  
> Ken Bour
>  
> <Proxy Procedure Changes-Apr 2011 (Staff v1).doc>