RES: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion

["Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am finally confortable with the proxy solution. The staff´s proposal is
better than ours.

 

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados 

IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 ? 1407,8

01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil

Tel + 5511 3266.6253

Mob + 55118181.1464

 

De: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de
Ken Bour
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 1 de abril de 2011 00:14
Para: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; Robert Hoggarth; gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion

 

Dear OSC Members:

 

ICANN Policy Staff have been following today?s discussion on the proxy
voting matter with interest and an eagerness to assist.  

 

We understand the core concern with the proxy rules as documented in the
GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP).  In essence, the proxy remedy currently
requires that the appointing organization (a) establish a voting position in
advance and (b) instruct the proxy Councilor on how to vote.  Not all SG/C
Charters support these actions and, as the OSC list dialogue reflects, it
appears that various GNSO organizations have been constrained to find
?creative? ways to comply with the requirements as adopted.   

 

Julie, Rob and I have evaluated the changes proposed by Philip and would
like to offer an alternative solution that, we believe, resolves the
fundamental issue with minimal text amendments to the GOP. 

 

In place of the current proxy requirement (see attached Par. 4.5.3-b-i),
Staff suggests amending the original language to state: 

 

The appointing organization?s Charter governs whether a proxy Councilor is
(or may be) required to vote ?Yes? or ?No? on any particular motion.  To
invoke the proxy remedy, the appointing organization shall affirm that any
voting position to be exercised by the designated proxy Councilor has been
confirmed and communicate such affirmation to the GNSO Secretariat (see
Paragraph 4.5.4) in advance of the vote. 

 

Rationale:  The above language would eliminate the two troublesome
requirements and replace them with an alternate which simply involves the
appointing organization affirming that it has been informed and
acknowledges, in advance, what the voting position(s) will be.  The
appointing organization may still direct the specific vote if its Charter
permits; however, there is no requirement to do so.  The purpose of the
affirmation would be to reinforce the appointing organization?s oversight
role in the proxy voting process without constraining or burdening its
internal procedures.  

 

The attached document contains minor text changes (redlined) to two
paragraphs, 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, that will enable the above amendment.  If you
agree with this approach, no changes would be required to Section
3.8-Absences.  In addition, Staff would also recommend updating the online
Abstention Notification Form
(http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) to
reflect this change, if approved by the OSC.  The current proxy form
questions are shown below:

Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CBEFA3.51D1E910

Staff suggests that the form be modified to have only one question as
follows:

 

I affirm that a voting position has been confirmed on the matter(s) at issue
pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws.   Y or N

 

We welcome further dialogue on this suggestion. 

 

Respectfully,

 

Ken Bour