Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer
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@graduateinstitute.ch> Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:46:01 To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Ray Fassett<ray@goto.jobs>; Avri Doria<avri@psg.com>; Ken Bour<ken.bour@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
If public sector policy processes with government are less tedious and bureaucratic - then we really need to simplify! Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au Sent: 28 October 2010 23:50 To: William Drake; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council; Philip Sheppard; Ray Fassett; Avri Doria; Ken Bour; NCSG EC Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [council] FW: Voting Remedies due to Absencer 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 _____ From: "William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Sender: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:46:01 +1100 To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Ray Fassett<ray@goto.jobs>; Avri Doria<avri@psg.com>; Ken Bour<ken.bour@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
participants (2)
-
rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au -
Zahid Jamil