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
Being as well a member of the GCOT and the OSC I don't have any issues with the rules' interpretation rather than with how to communicate the handling thereof. The nucleus of the proxy voting is - and this seemed to be common understanding within GCOT - that the councillors' votes in principle "belong" to the respective SG's/C's - with one exception: NomCom appointees. It's only up to the SG's or C's to "force" their council members in a certain way or not. Luck for the NomCom app's: they are entitled as "Auto Proxies" and don't need to ask anyone else beside the proxy. The poor others are "forced" to walk through the full process - unless the respective SG's/C's don't like to exercise the right of remedy rather to leave proxy choice up to their councillors. That's a chance to facilitate the process. I could imagine that - after principal consultation within the resp. SG's/C's - councillors could "autoproxy" by inserting a phrase like "...as agreed by the ...SG/C..." in the announcement of absence. Looking forward for the discussion at the council meeting. Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2010 00:57 An: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Philip Sheppard; Ray Fassett; Avri Doria Betreff: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer 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
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. Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone4 Le 28 oct. 2010 à 00:56, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
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
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
My recommendation on the call: If the proxy must vote "the will of the group," the group can express its generic will in advance that proxies may be exercised by the proxy selected by the Council member who must be absent/unable to vote, and the group accepts in advance vote made by the proxy. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
That's my interpretation / suggestion as well Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2010 23:40 An: Gomes, Chuck Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Voting Remedies due to Absence My recommendation on the call: If the proxy must vote "the will of the group," the group can express its generic will in advance that proxies may be exercised by the proxy selected by the Council member who must be absent/unable to vote, and the group accepts in advance vote made by the proxy. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Wendy Seltzer -
William Drake