RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Right.  But just wish to add that the GCOT approached the proxy idea mindful
of past efforts that did not succeed.  Our proxy mission (should we choose
to accept it - which we did) was to incorporate the tool in a manner that
could succeed the review process, including legal.  I am not sure how, if at
all, this discussion would be different now if the proxy procedure by
default allowed for unplanned absences.  Right now, the debate is whether or
to not allow for it.  Assuming so, is this going to subject the proxy tool
to a whole different type of review?  Is legal going to have weigh in?  So,
just trying to provide perspective with regards to things that were
considered by the GCOT towards completing the mission of (finally) getting a
proxy tool incorporated into the GNSO procedures - which we were determined
to accomplish where prior, strenuous efforts were not.  

Now, I see the point today that, ok GCOT you accomplished it, too bad no one
can understand it.  You're welcome.  (just kidding - the discussion is very
healthy and fully appropriate as I am 100% sure the GCOT members would
agree).

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:39 PM
To: Ray Fassett; Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

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
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>