RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

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

Good point Ray.  Maybe the OSC should get a preliminary opinion from the GC 
office before spending too much time on this.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:00 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 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
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>