RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

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

Thanks Ray.  It seems to me that gaming could occur as easily with planned as 
unplanned absences.  Good discussion.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:28 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 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
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>