ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
  • From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:18:20 -0700

While I admit I have not been able to keep up with all the traffic on this 
issue over the past couple of days, Rob's suggestion seems to make sense.   I 
also appreciate his offer to prepare a redline document of Philip's 
Whether via a conference call or on the list, it would be helpful to have two 
or more reasonably stable options in front of all of us for decision.   
Steve Metalitz


From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:48 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ken Bour; Julie Hedlund; Liz Gasster; Olga Cavalli
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

Dear Phillip, Stephane, Chuck and OSC Members:

Mindful of the recent message exchange earlier today and acknowledging 
Phillip's note regarding a return to the simplified-approach discussion, as 
promised in Ken Bour's earlier email, Staff would like to offer an alternative 
suggestion for streamlining the current SG proxy process that we think 
addresses the concerns expressed on the list and substantially limits any edits 
that need to be made to the existing GOP.   

In this alternate version (see attached), we have simply removed all 
constraining language from the proxy procedures in Paragraphs 4.5.3 and 4.5.4.  
If you concur, the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) would remain silent on 
whether proxies have to be decided, affirmed, confirmed, or even acknowledged 
in advance.  By removing these rules concerning the use of proxies, the 
existing statement in Section 4.5.1 (Duty of Councilors, Constituencies, and 
Stakeholder Groups) would prevail: 

        "When exercising his/her voting responsibilities on Council matters, a 
GNSO Councilor is expected to comply with any obligations prescribed within the 
applicable Stakeholder Group or Constituency Charter governing Councilor's 
appointment to the Council.  If such Charter procedures are silent with respect 
to voting guidance, directions, or restrictions, the Councilor may use his/her 
best informed judgment, unless specifically directed as described in Paragraph 
4.5.3-a [Voting Direction] below."

We believe this less invasive change to the GOP offers the most flexibility and 
is preferable because it accomplishes the goals of (a) deferring to SG/C 
Charters for proxy voting guidance (where applicable) and (b) allowing each 
Councilor to vote his/her own conscience - unless the appointing organization's 
charter provides a mechanism to direct how the vote shall be registered.

An Abstention Notification Form (or a similar email) would still need to be 
completed by the appointing organization (except for an NCA) to register the 
proxy Councilor, but any question regarding voting guidance or direction would 
be removed from the GOP.    

Thanks to Ken and Julie for helping to think through this concept and for 
trying to find a resolution that meets the committee's objectives.  I hope the 
contributions are welcomed. 

If, after considering this suggestion, the OSC prefers Phillip's original 
version, we would be happy to develop and circulate a red-line formatted 
document to clearly identify existing GOP language and Phillip's suggested 

I note that since Phillip's original message we've now seen some 
blending/stacking of new issues between the NCA proxies and the SG 
authorization issue.  Now that the potential NCA proxy crisis appears to have 
been averted, to clarify matters, perhaps the OSC should consider a conference 
call in the near future rather than continue this discussion via email 



From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:22:19 -0700
To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder 
Cc: Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, 
"gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth 
<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz 
Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures


Note that the procedures say that Andrei's proxy be given to Carlos:  "If an 
abstention is declared by a House NCA, once formal notification has occurred 
pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph 4.5.4-a, a proxy is automatically 
transferred to the GNSO Council's unaffiliated NCA (hereinafter Council NCA) 
and any vote cast will be counted within the House to which the abstaining NCA 
is assigned."  The problem we have been discussing was the following: if you 
and Andrei had to abstain and both of you wanted to assign a proxy to Carlos, 
only one of you would have been allowed to do so, unless I am reading the 
procedures incorrectly.


From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:06 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Ken Bour; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx; Robert 
Hoggarth; Julie Hedlund; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

I plan to attend the conf call on Thursday so I can be the proxi for Andrei.

2011/4/5 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

On Chuck's last point, I am not sure that would be consistent with the way this 
works for non NCA councillors, as proxies can only be given within the same SG, 
they do not cover the entire house.

I think we have to be careful not to create a situation where the NCAs enjoy 
benefits that elected councillors do not.


Le 5 avr. 2011 à 01:03, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy