ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

  • To: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:03:45 -0400

Thanks Ken & Rob.  Please note my responses below.




From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 5:07 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Robert Hoggarth'; 'Julie Hedlund'; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures




I would like to take a stab at providing my perspective since I worked
closely on these procedures while the GCOT's was active.  Rob and I have
discussed these matters today to ensure that our memories are
accurate/consistent on a number of points. 


*        The concept of voting direction, as written in the GOP, is
provided by an appointing organization -- not any Councilor.  Because
the NCAs do not have an appointing organization (as defined in the GOP),
we recall that the GCOT Work Team (WT) left their decisions to
conscience.  There is nothing in the procedures prohibiting the Council
NCA from accepting advice, counsel, or even direction from a House NCA,
but it would not be binding since the Council NCA was not appointed to
the position by that individual.  Theoretically, the Nominating
Committee could give such an instruction, but we recall that the GCOT WT
did not believe that Committee was in any position to act in such a
capacity on a routine basis.  [Gomes, Chuck]  I understand all of this
but have some different perspectives.  The fact that voting direction
comes from an appointing organization is only relevant if the appointing
organization (SG or constituency) provides voting direction; as we know,
some appointing organizations do not provide voting direction so in
those cases the situation is the same as it is for an NCA.  If a voting
NCA is not allowed to give direction, then the process is open to
gaming; for example, the voting NCA may have consulted with the
associated house on an issue and become convinced how to vote; allowing
the unaffiliated NCA to vote his/her conscience regardless of the issues
of the absent NCA could negate the work of the absent NCA and it could
also allow the absent NCA to break a tie in the applicable house with
limited or no knowledge from that house.  That seems very undesirable to


*        I believe that the language you cite in your note is from the
proposed modified GOP version offered by Philip.  Based upon OSC list
comments recently, my impression is that the committee's preference
would be to remove ALL voting direction from the official proxy
procedures, subject to being entirely and exclusively governed by the
applicable SG/C Charter.  I don't know of any SG/C Charter that allows
an individual Councilor to "instruct" another Councilor how to vote
whether via proxy or any other procedure.  If one Councilor did
"instruct" another regarding a vote, I cannot imagine on what basis it
would be binding.[Gomes, Chuck]  It would make it binding if the
procedures made it binding.  Based on the recent OSC list feedback,
Staff is working on a second proposal, which we hope to transmit
shortly, that would eliminate all of the current constraints regarding
proxy voting and, instead, revert to whatever rules are contained in the
appointing organization's charter.[Gomes, Chuck]  That sounds like it
might be good but isn't that what the changes offered by Philip does?
Also, that would not solve the problem I raised for NCAs.  We hope that
a focused and limited set of amendments will eliminate the need for a
more wide-ranging set of changes that could create their own unintended


*        Multiple proxies.  We recall that the GCOT WT wanted to
emphasize the importance of attendance at formal Council meetings;
moreover, there was an interest in preserving the "one man, one vote"
concept. [Gomes, Chuck]  There is still one man, one vote when direction
is given, just not one man casting only one vote, but that is the case
with a proxy vote anyway. A proxy entitles a Councilor to vote twice,
especially if there is no binding direction being provided.  Not
incidentally, the absentee balloting procedure also went through a
similar discussion.  You will recall that the GOP now provides only a
few narrow motion types for absentee balloting and, again, the intention
was not to make absence an attractive or easy an option.[Gomes, Chuck]
I support that but am more concerned about an educated vote being lost.
The GCOT WT wanted to create flexible voting remedies for the incidental
absence situation, but was mindful to keep a focus on regular and
consistent attendance by Councilors.[Gomes, Chuck]  My guess is that
they didn't considered the possible consequences I described.


*        The current GOP limit of one proxy per Council NCA follows the
same limitation that is true for each SG Councilor.  If, for example,
the RySG had two Councilors absent for a meeting (quorum rules
notwithstanding), the attending Councilor could still exercise only one
proxy vote per motion. The other absent Councilor votes would be
recorded as "absent." [Gomes, Chuck]  If it is important to maintain
this, then we could just allow an NCA to give the proxy to any Councilor
in the applicable house.


Staff welcomes Ray or any other GCOT WT members to correct or clarify
our collective memories on this topic. Of course, we are happy to try to
answer any additional questions you have on this topic.  




Ken Bour


From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention -
proxy vote - approval by April 15


I have some questions regarding Section 4.5.3, part b, Proxy Voting:

*         Paragraph ii says "The Council NCA will vote "Yes" or "No" or
"Abstain" according to conscience."  Why is there not an option for the
abstaining NCA to give instructions for how he/she wants to vote like
there is for SG Councilors?  Note that paragraph i for SG Councilors
says "The Proxy Holder must vote "Yes" or "No" according to either a) an
instruction from the appointing organization or b) an instruction from
the absent Councilor, or in the absence of an instruction c) the Proxy
Holder's own conscience."  Is there some reason why the following should
not be considered by paragraph ii: "The Council NCA will vote "Yes" or
"No" or "Abstain" according to an instruction from the absent Councilor,
or in the absence of an instruction the Proxy Holder's own conscience."

*         The next to last paragraph of this section says: "Mutiple
proxies. A GNSO Councilor is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more
than one vote for any specific motion. . . ."  What is the reason for
this restriction?  What happens if the NCAs for both houses are absent
in the same meeting and want to give their proxy to the nonvoting NCA?
One way of resolving this possible scenario is to all the nonvoting NCA
to hold up to two proxies in the case where both voting NCAs want to
submit proxies.  Another way would be to allow one of the house NCAs to
assign a proxy to an SG Councilor in the applicable house.




From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:12 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention -
proxy vote - approval by April 15


For approval April 15


As the OSC may be aware Council raised some concern with the current
rules on proxy voting.

Proxy voting is allowed as one remedy to avoid an abstention.

The source of the concern was that the Council rules assumed the
existence of procedures in Constituency charters that were not


I attach a proposed version that avoids this assumption while retaining
the essence of the proxy option.

I have also taken the opportunity to simplify language in this section
to avoid ambiguity.


Please may I have your approval to recommend this change to Council?

Deadline is April 15.


Philip Sheppard

OSC Chair

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy