ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:01:43 -0400

Thanks Ken, Julie & Rob.  It seems to me that the language you suggest,
in particular "the appointing organization shall affirm that any voting
position to be exercised by the designated proxy Councilor has been
confirmed" still implies that a voting position has been established
even if it doesn't actually require that and I believe that the concern
of some constituencies or SGs.  Isn't sufficient for the Constituency or
NomCom rep to simply authorize the proxy?  I think it is up to the
appointing organizations to manage their charters and Councilors.




From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:14 PM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; Robert Hoggarth; gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion


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


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:


Staff suggests that the form be modified to have only one question as


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


We welcome further dialogue on this suggestion. 




Ken Bour


PNG image

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy