ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

AW: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

  • To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: AW: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
  • From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:16:27 +0200

The idea of (optional) binding voting direction from one NCA towards the
other makes sense to me.
Regarding multiple proxies I understand Chuck pointing to a principle
which I support: "votes must not be lost". We should find wording
accordingly, e.g. "proxy on house level"

Kind regards




        Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
        Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. April 2011 01:04
        An: Ken Bour; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Julie Hedlund; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

        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

        *         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




        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

        Deadline is April 15.


        Philip Sheppard

        OSC Chair

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy