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

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

Vanda,

 

Like Avri.  I would appreciate it if you could be specific about the staff's 
proposal you prefer.  Could you provide specific language please along with 
what it would replace?

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Vanda UOL
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:44 PM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Robert Hoggarth'; gnso-imp-staff@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RES: [gnso-osc] Proxy Voting Discussion: Staff Suggestion

 

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:

 

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