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 11:30:05 -0500


I agree Chuck, but i don't know when i ever said simplicity was a reason not to 
fix things.

My point was that while those of us who spent a year talking about this stuff 
understood the twists and turns of the logic and might even able to show the 
ontogeny of that icannian logic, even talented lawyers with GNSO experience 
among the council members were baffled when they read what was written.

Sometime I think it was like software that is too clever for its own good.  
Often what seems really a really elegant solution, e.g. a routine that has 
multiple functionality or a variable with multiple bindings, doesn't really 
work and can't be understood or maintained.  Simplicity, even if it takes a few 
more sentences that seem 90% repetitive, is usually what is fit for purpose.


On 5 Apr 2011, at 11:16, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I agree with Avri on all counts with one qualification: Simplicity should not 
> be our rationale for avoiding problems that need to be fixed; we simply need 
> to find ways to fix them simply.
> Chuck
>> -----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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy