Stéphane,
Please see the following from the Procedures:
“4.5.3 Proxy Voting
The second method to be
considered in avoiding the consequences of an abstention is the use of proxy
voting, where the vote of an abstaining Councilor is transferred to another
GNSO Councilor.
i. For abstentions declared by
Councilors not appointed by the Nominating Committee and where voting direction
is not a viable remedy, the appointing organization may transfer the vote of
the abstaining Councilor to: (1) the House Nominating Committee Appointee
(NCA), (2) another of its Constituency Councilors (where applicable), or (3)
another Councilor within the Stakeholder Group. The appointing organization
must be able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position, subject
to provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable
measure/motion for which one of its Councilors has declared an intention to
abstain. The Councilor to whom the vote is transferred shall exercise a vote in
line with the appointing organization’s stated position.”
Did the RrSG “establish
an affirmative or negative voting position, subject to provisions contained in
its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable measure/motion for which one of its
Councilors has declared an intention to abstain”? If so, I was not aware
of that. The procedures go on to describe the procedure for doing that as you
can see below in Section 4.5.4, Procedures, taking note of particular sections
that I highlighted:
“4.5.4 Procedures
This paragraph outlines the
notification and communication steps required when an abstention condition is
identified as well as the procedures that must be followed in remedying the
abstention.
For the purposes of these
procedures, the term “written” or “in writing” shall
mean via postal mail or electronic mail (e-mail).
In order for an abstention
remedy to be implemented, all
required procedures must be completed prior to the start of the GNSO Council
meeting in which the vote will be taken; otherwise, the abstention will
not be remedied and the provisions of paragraph 4.5.4-c will apply.
a. Notification by Councilor
A Councilor who believes that
he/she should abstain from participation/voting on a measure before the Council
is required to provide, at the earliest opportunity, a brief written notification
documenting the circumstances to the appointing organization with a copy forwarded to the GNSO
Secretariat. For a House NCA, the notification should be sent to the
GNSO Secretariat with a copy to the Council NCA who is required to acknowledge
receipt to both parties that an automatic proxy is confirmed. If the situation
is perceived to be confidential in nature and cannot be disclosed in the
notification, a statement to that effect should be included by the Councilor.
b. Communication by Appointing
Organization or NCA
To effectuate a remedy described in 4.5.3, the appointing organization or, when applicable, the House or Council NCA must provide a written statement
to the GNSO Secretariat, as early as possible prior to any discussion/voting on
the matter at issue, containing the following information:
·
Name of the
abstaining Councilor.
• Remedy
selected (from Paragraph 4.5.3).
• Reason(s)
for or condition(s) leading to the remedy.
• Specific
subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy
is being exercised.
• Date
upon which the remedy will expire or terminate. No remedy may initially or
subsequently extend beyond three (3) months at a time. If the period needs to
be extended, a written notice can be provided to the GNSO Secretariat
indicating the reason for extension (e.g. Council vote postponed) and a new
expiration date. While there is no limit to the number of extensions;
“standing” remedies are not allowed under any circumstances.
• For
the specific remedies of Voting Direction and Proxy Voting, the communication
must include an affirmation that the appointing organization has established a
voting position, subject to provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on
the matter at issue. For Voting Direction, a statement from the appointing
organization shall indicate that the affected Councilor has been instructed how
to vote on the matter. Exclusion: these statements are not applicable or
required in a remedy applied for a House NCA.
• For
Proxy Voting, identification of the GNSO Councilor who will register the vote
for the abstaining Councilor.
•
For a Temporary Alternate, identification
of the individual who will serve as a substitute for the abstaining Councilor.
If not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of
Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the
GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take
place.”
I made my decision based on my
understanding of the above. If my understanding is incorrect, please help me
see where I went wrong.
Fortunately, in this case, I
don’t believe that the denial of the proxy requests in the meeting had
any material effect on the vote results. But I do hope that this provides us a
good test that will lead to better understanding of the procedures by all of
us, myself included, so that we can applying them properly and so that SGs and
constituencies can minimize any loss of votes because of absences.
Chuck
From: Stéphane Van Gelder
[mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:37 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Ken Bour; Mary Wong; Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@icann.org;
liz.gasster@icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures
This is only part of the texts that we should base our proxy
voting procedures on, as it only deals with absences. I had seen this text and
taking it into account when the issue of proxy voting came up during our last
meeting.
I still see nothing here that should have prevented Tim from
being able to request to have me as his proxy in the way that he did.
Stéphane
Le 28 sept. 2010 à 02:00, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Thanks a lot ken.
If anyone has questions about this, please ask.
Chuck
From: Ken Bour
[mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, September
27, 2010 2:05 PM
To: 'Mary Wong'; Gomes,
Chuck
Cc: 'Council GNSO'; robert.hoggarth@icann.org; liz.gasster@icann.org
Subject: Proxy Voting
Procedures
Chuck,
Mary, et al.:
I
am not entirely sure that this will help resolve the confusion, but the
absences and vacancies procedures are contained in Section 3.8-Incidental
Absences of the GOP, not Section 4.5. I copied out the following
paragraph (3.8.1-a) that pertains to your discussion…
a. Planned Absence:
It is understood that, from time to time, it may be necessary for a GNSO Council
member to miss a scheduled meeting due to a conflicting personal or
professional obligation or other planned event that cannot be reasonably
altered.
i. When a Councilor anticipates
being absent or late for a Council meeting, the Councilor is expected to notify
(e.g. telephone, e-mail) the GNSO Secretariat as soon as practicable before the
meeting begins.
ii. A Councilor is expected to vote
on such motions as may come before the GNSO Council using the alternative means
provided in Section 4.4-Absentee Voting, if applicable. If circumstances
will not permit voting using the alternative means available, the Councilor may
declare an intention to abstain on those motions that are scheduled to be voted
upon during the GNSO Council meeting at which the Councilor expects to be
absent. In such an instance, the procedures in Section 4.5-Abstentions
will apply.
In
essence, in the case of a planned absence, the Councilor is permitted to
declare an intention to abstain and that action affords the SG/C of the
remedies in Section 4.5 (e.g. proxy). Unplanned absences, covered
in 3.8.1(b), are not remediable due to lack of advanced notice.
To
execute any voting remedy does not require that a Councilor determine or
indicate whether an abstention is “volitional” or
“obligational.” Those categories were drafted to explain the
types of abstentions that can occur -- illustrated with a few examples that
were not intended to be exhaustive. A planned absence could
possibly be interpreted as volitional or obligational depending upon the
circumstances; but, again, it is not necessary to disclose which classification
applies in any abstention situation. Once a Councilor knows, in
advance of a Council meeting, that he/she will be absent, that is sufficient
declaration to request a voting remedy from the SG/C.
If
you have any other questions, I would be pleased to answer them.
Ken
Bour
From: Mary Wong
[mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September
25, 2010 11:34 AM
Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@icann.org; ken.bour@verizon.net
Subject: RE: [council]
Proxy Voting Procedures
Thanks
for the prompt and helpful answer, Chuck. I actually agree and understand that
the inclusive language in 4.5.2(a), regarding examples of volitional absence,
was intended to also cover the sort of situations I'd raised (particularly when
read with the "either/or" voting universe contemplated by 3.8.1.)
The
underlying problem, as I see it, is that the actual language of 4.5.2(a) in two
respects creates potential uncertainty going forward (particularly some
time down the road when many of those involved in drafting and initially
implementing these new procedures are no longer on Council). These two respects
are (1) the use of the words "elects to refrain from ... voting" in
4.5.2(a) (which implies a positive choice rather than one required by a
necessary absence); and (2) the examples used to illustrate possible basis for
such a choice. Although inclusive in nature, all three examples point toward
instances which relate to a Councillor's substantive inability to discharge
his/her duties responsibly. Either or both of these issues could
result - down the road - in possibly narrower interpretations of the abstention
voting procedures than we now are contemplating.
Helpful
though our email discussions are, unfortunately they are not official minutes
of a Council meeting or formal resolutions of a Council
discussion. It occurs to me that issues of interpretation such as the
one I raised could appropriately be referred, as a matter of implementation
oversight, to our Standing Committee for a formal confirmation that this
particular interpretation is correct for the record.
I'm
not sure how we are supposed to do this, but I'd be happy to draft and submit a
brief motion for Council consideration at the next meeting, if that's the way
to do it.
Thanks
and cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor
of Law
Chair,
Graduate IP Programs
>>>
Mary, I think you are missing something. In my opinion, if a
Councilor cannot make a meeting, the procedures apply, as long as there is
sufficient lead time to follow the procedures. What makes you think
that “instances
where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting” are not
covered? Note the following from Section 4.5: · “When circumstances regarding a potential voting
abstention occur that would otherwise prevent a Councilor from discharging
his/her responsibilities (see Paragraph 4.5.2), the Councilor’s
appointing organization is provided a set of remedies (see Paragraph 4.5.3)
designed to enable its vote to be exercised.” · “Circumstances may occur when a Council member elects
to refrain from participating and voting for reasons that may include, but
are not limited to . . .” (Section 4.5.2.a) Please
note the phrase “not limited to”. I believe that “instances where a
Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting” are covered here. BTW, I definitely do not view you as “being a
pest”. It is essential that we all learn the nuances of the new
procedures so that we can use them appropriately and as easily as possible. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Hi, Besides
the procedural issue, my concern was, and is, the sense (from reviewing the
new Council operating procedures) that if a Councilor is going to be absent
from a vote, the only way he/she can actually get to vote
- assuming the issue is not one that relates specifically to a PDP
Bylaw, Council procedure or vacancy (which triggers the Absentee Voting
procedures in 4.4) - is on issues that dictate an abstention. The
problem is that 4.5 (on Abstentions) presuppose only 2 situations where an
abstention is justified: (1) volitional (where a Councillor "elects to
refrain from participating and voting", see 4.5.2(a); and (2)
obligational (i.e. professional, personal or political conflicts), see
4.5.2(b). These then trigger the procedural remedies we've discussed
(including a proxy vote). I
completely agree that Councilors are fully expected and required
(including in 4.5.1) to participate actively and discharge their duties
responsibly, such that instances of absent and/or proxy voting are minimized
and not encouraged. However, it seems to me that there will be instances
where a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting, but fully wishes to vote on
a motion that is not one that triggers either 4.4 or 4.5. In other words,
he/she does not need to "elect to refrain" from voting, and is not
otherwise obligated to abstain. As
currently worded, neither 4.4 nor 4.5 (including the language on proxies)
would seem to cover this type of situation, which arguably could be handled
via a relatively straightforward proxy process. Am
I missing something, reading the procedures too narrowly, or ... ? (maybe
being a pest? :) Thanks
and cheers Mary In
such a case, the new Operating Procedures do not seem to allow for a
relatively simple - but documented and accountable - mechanism by which such
a case could be handled through a proxy. Mary W S Wong Professor
of Law Chair,
Graduate IP Programs
As
of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu |
As
of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu