[gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification

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

Thanks Ken. That is helpful to me.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:15 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> 
> Chuck:
> 
> I believe that we (me included) are using the same term in multiple
> ways
> resulting in confusion and miscommunication.
> 
> "Voting Direction" (capitalized) is a defined remedy that is used in
> situations when a Councilor faces a confliction situation which can be
> avoided by asking the appointing organization for instruction how to
> vote.
> This circumstance is probably quite rare, but it was included for the
> sake
> of completeness.  This formal Voting Direction remedy does not apply
to
> absence situations.
> 
> We have also been applying the term "voting direction" (lower case) to
> Proxy
> because the current rules require that the appointing organization
must
> (a)
> have an established voting position in advance and (b) direct its
> Councilor
> how to vote.  For a planned absence, if the chosen remedy is Proxy,
> then the
> above two rules would be followed, presumably, and "voting direction"
> would
> occur; however, the instruction comes not from another Councilor, but
> the
> appointing organization.  Other than the NCA case, the procedures do
> not
> provide any option in which one Councilor can give a proxy to another
> Councilor.  Only the appointing organization can decide (a) whether to
> remedy an abstention condition (not required) and, if it is to be
> remedied,
> (b) which remedy to exercise (e.g., Proxy or Temporary Alternate) as
> well as
> the individual who will serve.
> 
> In another thread to Ray, you asked about unplanned absences, so I
will
> attempt to provide my understanding for that situation.  Paragraph
> 3.8.1(b)
> covers the case of unplanned absence.  The only remedy that exists for
> these
> circumstances is absentee balloting.  The reason is that, in order to
> execute a Proxy or Temporary Alternate, the procedures "...must be
> completed
> prior to the start of the GNSO Council meeting in which the vote will
> be
> taken."  The GCOT recognized that it would be at the very least
> disruptive
> to the Secretariat and the Council to attempt executing a voting
remedy
> while the meeting is in progress.  If an absence occurs suddenly,
> without
> the opportunity to plan a remedy, and absentee balloting does not
> apply,
> then the only remaining option available is to record "absent" for any
> votes
> taken.  The GCOT did consider opening up the absentee balloting
process
> to a
> much wider list of motions, possibly even completely unconstrained;
> however,
> the team ultimately decided that the procedures should not make it
> easier
> for Councilors to be absent and still have their votes recorded.
> Another
> part of the rationale was that, if absentee balloting were exercised
> too
> frequently, Council votes would have to wait 72 hours (or longer) in
> order
> to know the final result.  That potential outcome was also considered
> undesirable; as a result, the four narrow categories were retained for
> absentee balloting.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> Ken
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:27 PM
> To: Ken Bour; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> 
> Ken,
> 
> Why did the GCOT decide that the voting direction option should not
> apply to
> absences?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Ken Bour
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:16 PM
> > To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> >
> >
> > Philip:
> >
> > In answer to your question, it might be helpful to understand that
> the
> > GOP
> > defines two types of abstentions:  volitional and obligational.
The
> > latter
> > category occurs when some personal or professional conflict arises
> with
> > respect to a motion (a.k.a. "conflict of interest").   Volitional
> > abstentions include the following types of situations (illustrative)
> > that a Councilor might encounter:
> >    - Perception of being inadequately informed
> >    - Has not participated in relevant discussions or studied
> available
> > materials
> >    - Lacks sufficient understanding, expertise, or technical
> knowledge
> >
> > When the GCOT first started working on voting remedies, they only
> > applied to the above abstentions.  Later, it occurred to the GCOT
> that
> > voting remedies should also be available for incidental absence and
> > even more
> permanent
> > situations such as leaves and vacancies.  Because the entire section
> on
> > abstentions and remedies had already been drafted, the GCOT
> recognized
> > that, for an absence, all that a Councilor would have to do is
> declare
> > a voluntary abstention (added 4th reason = I cannot be present) and
> > the voting remedies become available without having to perform major
> > surgery on the procedures.
> > In essence, an abstention is interpreted to mean, quite simply, "I
> > choose not to vote" and it can be declared for any number of
> > legitimate reasons including non-attendance.
> >
> > I understand how this construct might appear confusing (i.e.,
absence
> -
> > >
> > abstention); however, I assure you that no deception was ever
> intended.
> > Everything summarized above is thoroughly documented within Sections
> > 3.8 and
> > 4.5 of the GOP.
> >
> > If you have any additional questions, I will do my best to address
> > them.
> > The GCOT's development of these procedures, as you can imagine, was
> > intense and challenging and took the better part of a year to
> > accomplish.  I retained in my archives every email and document
> > version from the earliest drafts (Fall 2009).  We also have the
audio
> > recordings of GCOT meetings.
> > With a bit of research, I should be able to reconstruct the logic
> tree
> > for practically every consensus decision made.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ken Bour
> >
> > P.S.  The Voting Direction remedy does not apply in the case of an
> > absence - only an abstention caused by some conflicting situation.
> > Also, when Voting Direction does apply, it can only come from an
> > Appointing
> Organization,
> > not
> > another Councilor.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:46 AM
> > To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> >
> >
> > Thanks Ken,
> > I hoped had had caught this is my point 2 but your detail is most
> > helpful.
> >
> > Personally, I find the idea of declaring an abstention when in fact
> its
> > an
> > absence to be odd.
> > At best it is confusing, at worst deceptive (especially if a voting
> > direction is then provided by the absent Councilor) !
> >
> > I'd be interested to learn why this construction was invented.
> >
> > Philip