October 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday 28 October 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 28 October, 2010 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20101028-en.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct Happy Listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
by Gomes, Chuck 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

As I briefly mentioned in our meeting earlier today, a possible topic for discussion with the GAC and ccNSO in our joint meetings with them in Cartagena is the topic of procedures for joint SO/AC working groups or community working groups. As you can see by Liz's email below, I requested that Staff prepare a paper listing some of the issues that might need to be considered in that regard. Please review this and share any comments you have and provide any opinions you have about suggesting this topic to the GAC and ccNSO. If there are any objections to suggesting this as a topic for either joint meeting, please let me know by Wednesday of next week. If there are none, I will suggest the topic to Heather and Chris and send the attached discussion document as well. Thanks to Liz and any other staff members who helped develop the discussion paper. Chuck From: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:23 PM To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups All, On the last chairs call, Chuck suggested that it might be useful to encourage discussion between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO and GAC (and ALAC...) about the benefits and potential issues associated with cross-SO/AC working groups and whether/how their role might be better defined in the future. To stimulate that discussion, we prepared the attached draft at Chuck's request. The questions are just suggestions, we have not yet engaged in any internal consultation, and we do think it will be important to consult with the General Counsel's office to solicit their input and guidance. Please let us know if this is what you had in mind, and if you would like anything further. Thanks, Liz

1 0

GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Cartagena
by Glen de Saint Géry 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

Dear All, Please find the GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Cartagena in December 2010 as approved at the GNSO Council meeting on 28 October 2010. The voting period has been shortened and now will end on 29 November 2010 and the results will be announced on 30 November 2010. Please forward this to your respective groups right away so that the procedures can be initiated Immediately. These procedures are posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/elections/index.html COUNCIL ELECTION PROCEDURES OCTOBER/ NOVEMBER 2010 Approved 28 October 2010 This document contains the GNSO Council Election Procedures for the GNSO Council Chair to be seated in Cartagena in December 2010. References * ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X ) Article X, Section 3, paragraph 7. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year. Each House (as described in Section 6 of this Article) shall select a Vice-Chair, who will be a Vice-Chair of the whole of the GNSO Council, for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year. The procedures for selecting the Chair and any other officers are contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice- Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. * GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved on 5 August 2010 (http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf ) 2.2 Officer Elections: Chair and Vice-Chairs - The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair and two Vice Chairs as follows: a. The GNSO Chair shall be elected by a 60 percent vote of both houses. b. Each house will be allowed one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of a house but must be a member of the GNSO Council. Should a Chair be elected outside the houses that Chair will be a non-voting Chair. i. All ballots will include the "none of the above" option. In the event that this option gets 60 percent of both houses, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. The election will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days. ii. In the case of a tie the election will be rescheduled no sooner than 30 days. In the case of a second tie, each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. The election will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days. iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with the highest score. For each candidate, determine the percentage of vote received in each house; add these percentages to determine the score; the leader is the one with the higher score. (Maximum score equals 200.) iv. In case neither candidate reaches the 60 percent of both houses threshold, a second ballot will be held between the leader and "none of the above." v. If the single candidate does not reach the 60 percent of both houses threshold, then each house will commence a new nomination period of not longer than 15 days. The election will be rescheduled for no sooner than 30 days. c. Each house shall select a Vice Chair within their respective houses. d. A Chair and Vice Chair may not be elected from the same Stakeholder Group. e. The Chair or Vice Chair shall retain their votes in their respective houses. f. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. g. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election. Chair Qualifications Summary Nominees must be members of the council at the time the election is held and not necessarily at the time that the nominations are made. This means that: * A current council member who will not be in the new council is not eligible to run for chair. * An incoming council member who is not currently in the council is eligible to run for chair. Only current GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Chair Nomination Process Per the GNSO Operating Procedures referenced above (Section 2.2.b): "Each house will be allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO Council Chair. Each house is responsible for determining how to nominate its candidate." To allow for the possibility of a timely Council election process in Cartagena, each house is asked to submit its nominee for Council chair for the term beginning at the end of the 2010 ICANN annual meeting not later than 10, November 2010. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) as soon as possible after they have been selected by their house and not later than 22:00 UTC on 12, November 2010. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of the house selecting the candidate. Should the non voting NCA be elected as chair he/she would be a non-voting chair. The two houses may, separately, select the same candidate from the nominee pool if they so wish. House nominations for Council Chair should be sent to gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org. The GNSO Secretariat will send each House's nomination to the Council list as soon as it is received. Voting Procedure The candidates from each of the houses shall have the opportunity of meeting with Council Members during the GNSO Council meeting on 18 November 2010. The first round of voting for Council Chair will be held electronically from 19 November until 29 November 2010. The GNSO Secretariat will announce the results of the first round of voting no later than 30 November 2010. If no election of chair occurs in the first round of voting, the GNSO Operating Procedures quoted above in Section 2.2.b will be followed. Seating of the New Chair Chuck Gomes, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as chair of the Council meeting on 8 December 2010. The newly elected chair of the Council shall assume responsibilities at the end of the 2010 ICANN Annual meeting or as soon as an election occurs thereafter. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 10 December 2010, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as described in the GNSO Operating Procedures. The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election. (Note: The Election of Vice Chairs is house specific and will be defined elsewhere) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Cartagena
by Stéphane Van Gelder 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

Glen, Please make a not of Tim Ruiz' suggestion on the chat just now for our Cartagena agenda: "Constituting and chartering CWGs". Thanks, Stéphane

1 0

FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by Gomes, Chuck 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

This message is being forwarded to the Council list per Avri's request and also to Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, so that the two of them can hopefully comment on this issue in terms of what their understanding is in this regard. The language approved by the Council seems pretty clear to me but Avri thinks differently. Whatever, it can be changed if the Council supports a change. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:52 PM To: Ken Bour Cc: Mary Wong; Rosemary Sinclair; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; Liz Gasster; Ray Fassett; Julie Hedlund; Robin Gross Subject: Re: Voting Remedies due to Absencer (I have remove the GNSO Council from the CC, because I am not authorized to post to the GNSO list. However since Mr. Bour's email was sent to the GNSO list, I request that someone who is so authorized forward this message on as well. ) Dear Mr. Bour, As you know, I neither agree with your interpretation of the rules, nor accept that the rules that were approved capture the proper meaning and sprit of the intent of those creating the rules, but perhaps do reflect the zeal of the author of the rules to create the perfect set of rules by which to control the GNSO and its council members. For example, I know that I spoke at each and every opportunity of the unacceptability of a rule that forced a council member, even when in the role of proxy, to vote in a particular way. And yet, this somehow slipped into the rules. It is fine for a stakeholder group or constituency to make such a decision, but the policy should not as it robs a constituency or stakeholder group of it independent processes. As some understood with the rules pertain to DOI, I feel that there were mistakes introduced into the proxy rules, which I always spoke of as making like much too complicated. I have likened these rules to a Frankenstein's monster on occasion as we need books, charts, forms and full time self-appointed interpreters of the rules to make them even close to intelligible. We not have rules that the council and the stakeholder groups spend more time on that they do on Policy issues. and while there may be some in some quarters who think that is a good thing, I am sure that many don't. I also do not think it is appropriate for a staff member to become a rule enforcer. If the chair of the GNSO believes that I or anyone else in the NCSG/NCUC has misinterpreted or infracted the rules then it is for him to inform us. It is not, in my estimation the task of a contracted staff member to become the rules police. I ask you to remember that it is that Staff that serves the GNSO and not the other way around. Thank you a. On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote: > Hi Mary and Rosemary: > > Chuck Gomes has apprised me that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursday's GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Since the subject of absence and proxy has arisen a few times, perhaps it would be helpful to use this opportunity to clarify the procedures that apply. > > I will briefly outline the steps below; however, may I ask that you also take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample email contents for each of the various scenarios that can occur (e.g. planned absence, unplanned absence, abstention, vacancy). The procedures map and the related online Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) were both updated recently based on feedback received. A separate announcement will be sent out detailing the changes that were made. > > The GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) do not provide an option for a sitting Councilor to transfer votes via proxy. That authority rests with the applicable SG or Constituency. To utilize the proxy voting remedy for a planned absence requires that: > 1) The Councilor send an email (sample contents are provided in the visual map) to his/her SG/C outlining the reason for the absence and itemizing the motions for which a remedy is sought. [Note: if any of the motions qualifies for absentee balloting, they should be specifically excluded presuming that the absent Councilor would vote on them (electronically) within the 72 hour period normally allowed]. > > 2) An officer of the "Appointing Organization" transmit certain required information (ref. Section 4.5.4-b) to the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the meeting. The information can be provided via the online form as referenced above. > 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: > a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and > b. For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. > > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the "Appointing Organization" differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. > > If there were motions to be voted on this Thursday; then the above steps would have to have been completed before the start of the Council meeting in order for the identified Councilor to register the proxy vote. > > In some situations, it is recognized that it may be difficult for the proxy conditions to be satisfied. In those cases, another option that could be employed is the "Temporary Alternate (TA)" remedy. There is no requirement for a prior voting position or directing a Councilor's vote; however, you should be aware that a TA cannot be a sitting (or term-limited) Councilor. All of the TA conditions are covered in the visual map as well as the GOP (see Section 4.5.3-c). > > If there are any additional questions, I would be pleased to try and answer them. The topic of voting remedies is due to be discussed (Item #5) on the Council agenda this Thursday. Fortunately, Ray Fassett, Chair of the GCOT, will be on hand to provide an overview, philosophy, and rationale for the procedures that have been adopted. Staff will also be available to answer any specific procedural questions that may arise. > > Finally, a short commercial advertisement: Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour >

5 5

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

As I step onto my plane I am involved in many public sector policy processes with government None have the degree of bureaucracy we seem to have embedded in our processes Needs early review! My operational experience managing thousands of people says "Unless it's simple, it won't happen!" Life's too short! Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "William Drake" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:46:01 To: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; Ray Fassett<ray(a)goto.jobs>; Avri Doria<avri(a)psg.com>; Ken Bour<ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer Hi On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > > Thanks for forwarding this Chuck. I think Avri's email makes a lot of sense. I agree that the rules should not be so cumbersome as to force the Council to spend more time and effort on admin stuff to the detriment of policy issues. I have stated several times that I found the current DOI rules we are trying to work to overly cumbersome, and also voiced my opposition to the way the proxy rules were interpreted recently as they stopped both an RrSG and an NCSG councillor from voicing their vote. > > I also share the worry that staff should become "rules enforcers". It is up to Council leaders to enforce the rules, working with the Council. > > I do hope we can streamline the rules so that the sound theory and good intentions that went into elaborating them does not stand in the way of the practical sense needed to apply them in our everyday work. I agree with Stéphane and Tim that the proxy rules seem cumbersome and unduly restrictive. As with the DOI, we should have had a more probing discussion at the Council level before voting, but there's no reason why we can't course correct now. >> >> On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote: >>> >>> 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: >>> a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and >>> b. For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. Do I understand correctly that the AO as a whole must have a unified position one way or the other in order for a Councilor's vote to be given to colleague, otherwise it is penalized and loses the vote? Maybe that's ok for any AO's that only allow their Councilors to vote as specifically directed; no agreement, no direction, nothing lost. It would not be ok for AO's that allow their Councilors to exercise judgement and do what they think is right, and hence may not have a singular position. In this case, the absent Councilor who should have been able to give her/his proxy to a colleague and say please vote xyz loses the vote for no reason. On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Ken Bour wrote: > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the “Appointing Organization” differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. Ok…So we are not quite NCSG in this context…? The NCUC charter says Councilors may "assign their vote by proxy to the other Constituency GNSO Council Representative for all calls and meetings for which he/she cannot be present, with or without specific voting instructions." And the Interim Charter the board gave NCSG, which presumably is über alles, says only that a Councilor "elected or appointed pursuant to this Charter shall be subject to the rules, principles, responsibilities, and duties as set forth in the Charter of the Constituency that originally nominated him/her for election to the Council," which for us elected types would be NCUC. So then we three can individually assign our proxies to each other and exercise proxy votes irrespective of whether our AO has established an affirmative or negative voting position? Or do the OPs trump both the NCUC and the NCSG charters? I should never try to grok the OPs after a long day…. Bill

2 1

FW: Council meeting
by Gomes, Chuck 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

Please note that Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, will not be able to participate in our Council meeting today as previously plan. In lieu of his attendance, he asked me to forward the following message. It was anticipated that Philip would participate in two agenda items: "Item 5: Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain" and "Item 6: Disclosure of Interest Procedures". Chuck -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:09 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Ray Fassett Subject: RE: Council meeting Chuck, Please forward this to Council. Chances are I will not join the call tonight for various reasons. Ray will anyway be in a better position to explain how his group reached the rules they did and what eventualities they tried to foresee. Let me share some more high level thoughts. 1. OSC role I regard the OSC as a check on the work of the sub groups more about process than content. It is also a chance to have a second set of eyes review a proposal. But there is nothing like actually using a set of rules to expose their strengths and weaknesses. 2. Objective of the GNSO rules of procedure The rules meet essentially one of two requirements. a) Improve the efficiency of Council. b) Improve the integrity of Council. 3. Good rule or bad rule? The rule must be proportionate to its objective. If to apply it is disproportionately onerous it should be changed. ------------------------------- Conclusions 1. Having re read the rule on proxies and abstentions and read the Council list they look to me to be disproportionate. The graphic heroically produced by staff underlines their complexity. The current rules may not be adding to the efficiency of Council. If true change them. 2. The rules on declarations of interest need special consideration. These rules are there for the second integrity objective. Council is by its nature a nest of vested interests. Transparency via declarations of interest is the solution. Here I would apply a harder test of proportionately. Council should be expected to make extra efforts in pursuit of being a body with integrity. On re reading the amended rules, I believe they are simpler and my instinct would be to try them out for a few months before seeking any change. (By way of record keeping there should be one web page logging current SOIs and specific DOIs per Council member). Hope this helps. Philip OSC Chair

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
by Tim Ruiz 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

I would support a change. I do feel that there needs to be a clear process for appointing a proxy but it could be less complicated and more flexible. I would also like to point out that the RrSG (and previous constituency) has never required that its Councilors vote a specific way. I appreciate the work and thought that has gone into the current process, but now that we have some experience with it I think it's clear some changes are needed. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 5:56 pm > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "Ray Fassett" > <ray(a)goto.jobs>, "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com> > > This message is being forwarded to the Council list per Avri's request and also to Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair, and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, so that the two of them can hopefully comment on this issue in terms of what their understanding is in this regard. > > The language approved by the Council seems pretty clear to me but Avri thinks differently. Whatever, it can be changed if the Council supports a change. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 6:52 PM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: Mary Wong; Rosemary Sinclair; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; Liz Gasster; Ray Fassett; Julie Hedlund; Robin Gross > Subject: Re: Voting Remedies due to Absencer > > (I have remove the GNSO Council from the CC, because I am not authorized to post to the GNSO list. However since Mr. Bour's email was sent to the GNSO list, I request that someone who is so authorized forward this message on as well. ) > > Dear Mr. Bour, > > As you know, I neither agree with your interpretation of the rules, nor accept that the rules that were approved capture the proper meaning and sprit of the intent of those creating the rules, but perhaps do reflect the zeal of the author of the rules to create the perfect set of rules by which to control the GNSO and its council members. For example, I know that I spoke at each and every opportunity of the unacceptability of a rule that forced a council member, even when in the role of proxy, to vote in a particular way. And yet, this somehow slipped into the rules. It is fine for a stakeholder group or constituency to make such a decision, but the policy should not as it robs a constituency or stakeholder group of it independent processes. > > As some understood with the rules pertain to DOI, I feel that there were mistakes introduced into the proxy rules, which I always spoke of as making like much too complicated. I have likened these rules to a Frankenstein's monster on occasion as we need books, charts, forms and full time self-appointed interpreters of the rules to make them even close to intelligible. We not have rules that the council and the stakeholder groups spend more time on that they do on Policy issues. and while there may be some in some quarters who think that is a good thing, I am sure that many don't. > > I also do not think it is appropriate for a staff member to become a rule enforcer. If the chair of the GNSO believes that I or anyone else in the NCSG/NCUC has misinterpreted or infracted the rules then it is for him to inform us. It is not, in my estimation the task of a contracted staff member to become the rules police. I ask you to remember that it is that Staff that serves the GNSO and not the other way around. > > Thank you > > a. > > > > > > > On 27 Oct 2010, at 23:47, Ken Bour wrote: > > > Hi Mary and Rosemary: > > > > Chuck Gomes has apprised me that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursday's GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Since the subject of absence and proxy has arisen a few times, perhaps it would be helpful to use this opportunity to clarify the procedures that apply. > > > > I will briefly outline the steps below; however, may I ask that you also take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample email contents for each of the various scenarios that can occur (e.g. planned absence, unplanned absence, abstention, vacancy). The procedures map and the related online Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) were both updated recently based on feedback received. A separate announcement will be sent out detailing the changes that were made. > > > > The GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) do not provide an option for a sitting Councilor to transfer votes via proxy. That authority rests with the applicable SG or Constituency. To utilize the proxy voting remedy for a planned absence requires that: > > 1) The Councilor send an email (sample contents are provided in the visual map) to his/her SG/C outlining the reason for the absence and itemizing the motions for which a remedy is sought. [Note: if any of the motions qualifies for absentee balloting, they should be specifically excluded presuming that the absent Councilor would vote on them (electronically) within the 72 hour period normally allowed]. > > > > 2) An officer of the "Appointing Organization" transmit certain required information (ref. Section 4.5.4-b) to the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the meeting. The information can be provided via the online form as referenced above. > > 3) There are two important proxy requirements that are addressed in the online form: > > a. For each motion that is scheduled to come up for vote, the "Appointing Organization" must have established an affirmative or negative voting position per its Charter provisions; and > > b. For each motion, the "Appointing Organization" must affirm that is has directed the Councilor serving as proxy how to vote. > > > > In the specific case of the NCSG, Staff notes that the "Appointing Organization" differs between the Board appointees and those Councilors who were elected by the NCUC. For Mary, Bill, and Wendy, a voting remedy would have to be authorized by the NCUC Chair (or designated officer); whereas, for Rosemary, Debbie, and Rafik, there is a footnote in the GNSO Operating Procedures which stipulates that they are considered to have been appointed by the NCSG. > > > > If there were motions to be voted on this Thursday; then the above steps would have to have been completed before the start of the Council meeting in order for the identified Councilor to register the proxy vote. > > > > In some situations, it is recognized that it may be difficult for the proxy conditions to be satisfied. In those cases, another option that could be employed is the "Temporary Alternate (TA)" remedy. There is no requirement for a prior voting position or directing a Councilor's vote; however, you should be aware that a TA cannot be a sitting (or term-limited) Councilor. All of the TA conditions are covered in the visual map as well as the GOP (see Section 4.5.3-c). > > > > If there are any additional questions, I would be pleased to try and answer them. The topic of voting remedies is due to be discussed (Item #5) on the Council agenda this Thursday. Fortunately, Ray Fassett, Chair of the GCOT, will be on hand to provide an overview, philosophy, and rationale for the procedures that have been adopted. Staff will also be available to answer any specific procedural questions that may arise. > > > > Finally, a short commercial advertisement: Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ken Bour > >

1 0

Re: [council] RE: Absence from Council
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au 27 Oct '10

27 Oct '10

Hi Ken I have looked at the process map - it's complexity led me to a simple "fail-safe" procedure; Advise absence to Secretariat and SG which then indicates the proxy. At the moment my admin focus is on finalisation of the NCSG Charter My policy focus is on 'operationalising' ICANN's commitment to consumers thru structure, strategy and decision processes If there's time in Colombia - let's catch up Cheers Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:31:06 To: 'Rosemary Sinclair'<Rosemary.Sinclair(a)atug.org.au> Cc: 'Glen de Saint GÃ©ry'<Glen(a)icann.org>; Robert Hoggarth<robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org>; <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>; Council GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Absence from Council Rosemary: I have been apprised that there are no motions scheduled for this Thursday’s GNSO Council meeting; therefore, there is no need to implement any voting remedies such as proxy. Rather than attempt to write out the procedures, may I ask that you take a look at a visual map that Staff prepared which diagrams how the voting remedies work for various conditions such as absence or abstention. The procedures map is located at: http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm and contains sample language for the various emails that might be created under different scenarios. Staff has a standing offer available to any SG/C that would like to have a briefing or tutorial on the voting remedies procedures. Thank you, Ken Bour From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:17 AM To: Rosemary Sinclair; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Absence from Council Hi Rosemary, Thank you for your notification. Please find the link to the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures below: http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Forwarded From: Rosemary Sinclair Hi Glen I have to go to NZ on Friday – so will be on plane while Council meeting is on Would you remind me of the Absentee Advice and Proxy Procedures please? Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Managing Director, ATUG Chairman, INTUG

1 0

UPDATED: Voting Remedies Procedural Map & Abstention Notification Form
by Ken Bour 27 Oct '10

27 Oct '10

To: GNSO Councilors Stakeholder Group and Constituency Leaders The topic of Voting Remedies (i.e. abstentions, absences, and vacancies) is currently Item #5 on the GNSO Council agenda scheduled for 28 October 2010 and Ray Fassett, GCOT Chair, has been invited to participate. In preparation for this discussion, I wanted to inform you that we have made several improvements (outlined below) to both the Voting Remedies Visual Map and the online Abstention Notification Form based upon feedback received. Visual Map (http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm) 1) Changed title to Voting Remedies: Abstentions, Absences, and Vacancies 2) Removed a redundant step in the Planned Absence structure (per Chucks suggestion). 3) Added larger Email Icons to indicate where sample message contents are provided and located them to the right side of each block for consistency with the Note icons. 4) All of the pop-up text is now available to be copied/pasted to simplify creating an Email message using the sample message contents. 5) Repositioned sections to enable the addition of flow arrows to make it easier to follow the procedure. Abstention Notification Form (http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm) 1) Changed several field labels to include the word Officer to make clear who completes this form. 2) Reordered the fields based upon feedback (e.g. moved Officer Email Address to top section). 3) Added conditional logic to the form so that, once a particular voting remedy is selected, only the appropriate fields appear. The above changes are intended to make the procedures map and the online form easier to understand, follow, and execute. I thank those who provided constructive feedback in helping to make these tools more useful to the GNSO community. I also thank our responsive ICANN Web-Admin team for their flexibility and creativity in implementing the above design enhancements. For those SGs and Constituencies that have yet to take advantage of the offer, Staff remains available to provide a tutorial on the new Voting Remedies including the procedures map and online form. Ken Bour

1 0