RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip,

The reason I brought up the scenario of the two non-voting NCAs being
absent in the same meeting is because it may happen in the upcoming
Council meeting.  That is why I discovered it.  So it may not be as
unlikely as you think.  Moreover it could factor into whether a motion
passes or not.  In the case of NCA votes, they have increasing chances
of being tie breakers, so when there is an even split of SG votes in a
house and the voting NCA is absent, the vote will fail.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:51 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 
> Thanks everyone for the good dialogue on this.
> I fear we are trying to solve increasing unlikely scenarios.
> 
> 1. Important votes
> An absent Councilor votes by e-mail when the vote is important defined
> as
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or
ICANN
> Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 
> 2. Less important votes
> An absent Councilor wishing to vote on issues NOT above may give a
> proxy.
> 
> 3. Abstaining (due to personal conflict of interest)
> Because abstentions = a No vote, two remedies exist in order of
> priority.
> a) they get direction from the appointing organisation.
> b) they give a proxy.
> 
> --------------------
> Thus:
> a) proxies are always a secondary remedy.
> b) proxies are for less important votes
> c) proxies come into play when there is a personal conflict.
> -------------------------
> Conclusion:
> a) any gaming / unfairness is likely to have a minimal real-world
> effect.
> b) the chances of both NCA Councilors having a personal conflict on a
> less
> important vote is low.
> 
> -------------------------
> Conclusion for GNSO rules:
> Having heard all the discussion, I still believe the original
> simplified wording
> I proposed does the job.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Philip
> 
>