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