I believe you are presuming that a nomcomm rep couldn't pass a proxy to another party. Past practice was that they could, and if deemed necessary, made it conditional on following instructions. This also extended to constituency members. There were a couple of times that Norbert passed me his proxy on the basis that I voted it a specific way. On at least one occasion, those instructions ran contrary to the way I cast my ballot. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be carried forward and explicitly include nomcomm reps. Avri Doria wrote:
On 13 jul 2007, at 12.47, Ross Rader wrote:
Avri Doria wrote:
I also favor an approach that includes a prohibition against using a proxy mechanism to avoid a required abstention based on a conflict of interest.
Why?
On the basis of a basic fairness issue.
My expectation is that everyone may at some point face a vote on which they have a conflict that would force an abstention.
In the event that someone is a nomcom appointee or from a constituency that does not use a constituency discipline method of internal organization, it makes sense that they would not be allowed to use the proxy to avoid the need to abstain. So, for me it follows from a general non-prejudicial principle that, as I indicated, no constituency be given an advantage based on their organizational practice or methodology.
My interests and those of my constituency can be different. For instance, I have conflicts related to my employment with Tucows that other councillors may not share. Why should that prevent the registrar constituency from casting one of its ballots through proxy?
I guess the actual question is who do the ballots belong to?
I read the following by-laws as relevant:
x.3.1 the GNSO Council shall consist of three representatives selected by each of the Constituencies described in Section 5 of this Article, and three persons selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee.
X.3.8(b) all members are provided the means of fully participating in all matters before the GNSO Council, and (c) ICANN adopts and implements means of verifying that (x) a person participating in such a meeting is a member of the GNSO Council or other person entitled to participate in the meeting and (y) all actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are taken or cast only by the members of the GNSO Council and not persons who are not members.
X.5.2. The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast shall be equalized so that the aggregate number of votes of representatives selected by the Constituencies (currently the gTLD Registries and Registrars) that are under contract with ICANN obligating them to implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the number of votes of representatives selected by other Constituencies.
I read this as stating that: - a constituency can pick 3 members of council - those council members, and only those council members have a right to vote. - the RyC and RC council members each have 2 votes
My reading indicates that while the constituency picks the members, it is the members who have the vote and not the constituencies. I believe it is totally acceptable practice for a constituency to place requirements on how its representatives vote, but I do not see that as meaning that they, therefore, control the votes in council, though they do control the seating of the councilor.
As a general rule, I'd really prefer if we adopted a very simple set of rules governing the use of proxy's, and would strongly prefer if we just implemented the old rules as starting point that we could adjust over time. I don't see a need to overthink or overengineer this simply to take into account "what-if's" that have never come into play during the history of the DNSO/GNSO.
I agree with the general rule of making the simplest possible change. However, in this case, I think we would need a much larger change to the by-laws to accommodate your suggestion, which of course we can discuss doing. Additonally since the concern about the possibility of use of proxy to get around the abstention requirement has been brought up in regard to proxy voting, I believe we have to consider that in any proposed changes to the by-laws.
thanks
a.
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492