RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies
How do we define *conflict of interest.* For example, if we define it the same way the Board does we may have to exclude entire constituencies from the majority of Council votes. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 8:15 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Stephane, The problems you describe need to be dealt with but I believe it is possible to do so in an effective and transparent manner. In other words, I think they are solvable. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:40 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies
Hi Bruce,
Both you and Chuck make interesting points. Especially in the light of recent discussions we've had in the Council about how Councillors can best represent the views of their constituencies. There's no doubt that if a constituency instructs its Councillors to vote a certain way on a certain issue, said Councillors will be put in a very difficult situation if they have a conflict of interest on that issue.
One (easy?) way to resolve this might simply be for Councillors to state that they are voting as instructed by the constituency and not as a reflection of their own personal views. This could then be recording in the vote summary that goes to the Board for instance, or in the transcript that is made publicly available.
However, I see several problems. The first one is that Councillors are generally assumed to vote for their constituencies anyway, so why stress that fact again? And what if a Councillor then votes without stating the above, either because he forgets to, or because he doesn't have clear instructions from his Constituency? Would people naturally assume his vote is a reflection of his own personal views and accuse him or her of putting those first?
It's a difficult one.
Stéphane
Le 15/07/09 06:01, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> a écrit :
Hello Chuck,
I agree with you that we should consider additional special situations with regard to voting, but we will probably
have to deal
with them after we get finished with the huge current workload.
Sounds fair to me - just thought I would mention it, while we are considering voting rules.
It doesn't seem to me that a constituency (or in the future a stakeholder group) should lose a vote because their elected councilor has a personal conflict of interest.
Agreed. But at the same time I do think the issue of personal conflicts of interest need to be taken into account. So I think a mechanism that allows a constituency to retain their votes, but prevents an individual from being put in a difficult situation is worthwhile.
Another example in the past is how to handle elections to the Board, where a candidate is a sitting Council member. There has been a mechanism used in the past where the constituency can appoint a person to vote on behalf of the constituency, in place of the Council member.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I think you are correct Tim. I believe a GNSO conflict policy will have to be somewhat different than the Board's for the reaons you cite. In my opinion, the most important thing is declaration of possible conflicts. I don't personally think, especially in the GNSO, that possible conflicts should necessarily require recusal from voting and I definitely do not believe that possible conflicts should preclude participation. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:45 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies
How do we define *conflict of interest.* For example, if we define it the same way the Board does we may have to exclude entire constituencies from the majority of Council votes.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 8:15 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Stephane,
The problems you describe need to be dealt with but I believe it is possible to do so in an effective and transparent manner. In other words, I think they are solvable.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:40 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Regarding voting rules for conflict of interest - proxies
Hi Bruce,
Both you and Chuck make interesting points. Especially in the light of recent discussions we've had in the Council about how Councillors can best represent the views of their constituencies. There's no doubt that if a constituency instructs its Councillors to vote a certain way on a certain issue, said Councillors will be put in a very difficult situation if they have a conflict of interest on that issue.
One (easy?) way to resolve this might simply be for Councillors to state that they are voting as instructed by the constituency and not as a reflection of their own personal views. This could then be recording in the vote summary that goes to the Board for instance, or in the transcript that is made publicly available.
However, I see several problems. The first one is that Councillors are generally assumed to vote for their constituencies anyway, so why stress that fact again? And what if a Councillor then votes without stating the above, either because he forgets to, or because he doesn't have clear instructions from his Constituency? Would people naturally assume his vote is a reflection of his own personal views and accuse him or her of putting those first?
It's a difficult one.
Stéphane
Le 15/07/09 06:01, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> a écrit :
Hello Chuck,
I agree with you that we should consider additional special situations with regard to voting, but we will probably
have to deal
with them after we get finished with the huge current workload.
Sounds fair to me - just thought I would mention it, while we are considering voting rules.
It doesn't seem to me that a constituency (or in the future a stakeholder group) should lose a vote because their elected councilor has a personal conflict of interest.
Agreed. But at the same time I do think the issue of personal conflicts of interest need to be taken into account. So I think a mechanism that allows a constituency to retain their votes, but prevents an individual from being put in a difficult situation is worthwhile.
Another example in the past is how to handle elections to the Board, where a candidate is a sitting Council member. There has been a mechanism used in the past where the constituency can appoint a person to vote on behalf of the constituency, in place of the Council member.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (2)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Tim Ruiz