ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Vanda UOL <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: RES: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:21:25 -0500


Forgive me, but what do you mean?  
What parts of the staff solution do you prefer to 'ours'.



On 11 Apr 2011, at 14:44, Vanda UOL wrote:

> I am finally confortable with the proxy solution. The staff´s proposal is 
> better than ours.
> Vanda Scartezini
> <image003.jpg>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:
> <image004.png>
> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy