RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Your question is certainly relevant, Chuck.  And one the GCOT tussled with
appreciating real world practicalities.  But, in general, the GCOT's
approach to the Operating Procedures was to stress the principle of
attendance.  When we got to the subject of proxy - and the notion of
implementing such a tool (which historically has been a lightning rod) - we
chose to investigate how a procedure could exist but where, if possible,
would not compromise the overriding principle of stressing Councilor
attendance.  It had little to do, I believe, of whether an unplanned absence
was any worse than a planned one while I do recall some discussion with
regards to mitigating so-called gaming scenario's which we thought was the
culprit, at least in part, that bogged down past efforts to incorporate a
proxy tool into the GNSO voting process.

With this said, I believe if there are other ways to maintain the high level
principle of attendance that the GCOT felt important to stress, separate and
apart from the proxy discussion, to the satisfaction of the OSC, then
perhaps you are getting to the same place as the GCOT.

Hope this helps.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:14 PM
To: Ray Fassett; Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

No need to apologise for commenting Ray.  Your input is helpful.  But I do
have a question for you: Why shouldn't proxies be used for unplanned or last
minute absences?  There are times when those are beyond the control of the
Councilor.  There are other ways to deal with abuse of proxy voting and poor
attendance.  Is an unplanned absence any worse than a planned one?  

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Ray Fassett
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:02 PM
> To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 
> I going to pipe in from the peanut gallery that a main tenet of the 
> GCOT was to stress the overriding principle of attendance to meetings 
> - and with regards to incorporating a proxy procedure was not to be 
> for convenience such as unplanned, or last minute absences.  
> Personally, I do not think this is a difficult concept to communicate, 
> including to new members to the Council, and in fact what the GCOT 
> felt was important to do.
> 
> Sorry to interject.
> 
> Ray
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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 meaning.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>