Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

To be honest, my feedback as Chair of the Council right now is that the proxy 
procedure that we have begun to use this year is working OK.

Now I have to add the caveat that we have never faced a situation where both 
voting NCAs are absent, which is what we've been discussing here.

But I thought it useful for you all to have the feedback that, in general, the 
current proxy procedure feels OK. It could probably do with tweaking, but I 
don't think a complete rehash is necessary.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 5 avr. 2011 à 19:00, Ray Fassett a écrit :

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