ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

  • To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:20:21 -0500


I think we need to make it easier for council members to participate via proxy.

Accepting as we must that the scheduling of Council meetings might not be 
optimal there needs to be a way to deal with this.  It is up to the SG/C to 
deal with their member's attendance records.  We should not try to do that by 
creating byzantine rules.  We should remember that one reason ICANN and the 
GNSO take a year or more for a new council to understand is because we keep 
pilling confusion upon confusion in our rules.  We need to make our rules 
simple while making them fit for purpose.

I very much appreciate Philip's attempt to use simple language as opposed to 
language that required a parliamentarian from the staff to interpret its 


On 5 Apr 2011, at 09:54, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> I understand what you are saying Chuck, but I would suggest that the proxy 
> rules are there to cater for exceptional circumstances and that we should be 
> mindful that any alteration to those rules does not make it simpler for a 
> Councillor simply to not attend the meetings. There is an expectation in the 
> rules for Councillors to make best efforts to attend the meetings and 
> therefore render these proxy rules moot.
> Stéphane
> Le 5 avr. 2011 à 15:57, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
>> The Whois Studies motion; it happens to be one that the registries and
>> registrars my split their votes.  As it turns out, I just learned that
>> it will not be a problem because Olga will be able to attend the
>> meeting.   Previously it looked like Andrei and Olga may not be able to
>> attend.
>> I suspect that liberalizing proxy voting might be difficult to do
>> because of General Council concerns about that, which we have
>> encountered repeatedly in the past.
>> I really think the concerns identified can be satisfied fairly simply.
>> Chuck
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:22 AM
>>> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
>>> Chuck,
>>> interesting to learn of possible absences from the next council
>>> meeting.
>>> Which votes outside of the 4 e-mail votable areas will be affected?
>>> -----------------
>>> If the key issue is NOT proxy as a remedy for abstentions,
>>> BUT  proxy as a remedy for absences, then it seems to be a better
>>> solution would
>>> be to remove the 4 category limit for e-mail votes?
>>> OR, if Council prefers to vote and know an outcome at the meeting (a
>>> good idea
>>> methinks), perhaps we should consider simplification as follows:
>>> a) scrap e-mail votes
>>> b) scrap directed voting
>>> c) liberalise proxy voting as the only remedy.
>>> Thoughts ?
>>> Philip

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy