Point for Discussion
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council. It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used. I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation. Thoughts? I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Hi, Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for several reasons. Among those reasons: - There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the constituency. Although most of the constituencies seem to hold their representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by laws mandating this. I think it is important to maintain the possibility that every representative participates as an trusted individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat. Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require constituency discipline. - It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the meetings and participate in the discussion. - The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we would therefore have to take someone's word for it. And while the constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be complete. - It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might miss a meeting. I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting provisions as part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make some of its own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at that point. a. On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Thanks for the response Avri. Please note my comments below. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:22 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
Hi,
Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for several reasons. Among those reasons:
- There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the constituency. Although most of the constituencies seem to hold their representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by laws mandating this. I think it is important to maintain the possibility that every representative participates as an trusted individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat. Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require constituency discipline.
What I proposed would not limit this in any way.
- It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the meetings and participate in the discussion.
Most issues do not involve voting so I am not sure this would happen and as constituencies we would be able to manage participation internally with our reps.
- The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we would therefore have to take someone's word for it. And while the constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be complete.
We wouldn't need to make it overly complicated and if we cannot take people's word, we have a bigger problem.
- It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might miss a meeting.
Agreed but that is the same as it is today.
I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting provisions as part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make some of its own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at that point.
a.
On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
I fully agree with avri's comments here. Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that makes some members on the board think that the council should become a management body of working group processes that will elaborate policies. Mawaki --- Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:
Hi,
Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for several reasons. Among those reasons:
- There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the constituency. Although most of the constituencies seem to hold their representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by laws mandating this. I think it is important to maintain the
possibility that every representative participates as an trusted individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat. Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require constituency discipline.
- It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the meetings and participate in the discussion.
- The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we would therefore have to take someone's word for it. And while the constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be complete.
- It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might miss a meeting.
I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting provisions as part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make some of its own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at that point.
a.
On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a
position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency
considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Actually Mawaki, I think the Bylaws support this view: "Section 2. ORGANIZATION The GNSO shall consist of (i) various Constituencies representing particular groups of stakeholders, as described in Section 5 of this Article and (ii) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO." Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:29 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
I fully agree with avri's comments here. Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that makes some members on the board think that the council should become a management body of working group processes that will elaborate policies.
Mawaki
--- Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:
Hi,
Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for several reasons. Among those reasons:
- There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the constituency. Although most of the constituencies seem to hold their representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by laws mandating this. I think it is important to maintain the
possibility that every representative participates as an trusted individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat. Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require constituency discipline.
- It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the meetings and participate in the discussion.
- The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we would therefore have to take someone's word for it. And while the constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be complete.
- It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might miss a meeting.
I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting provisions as part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make some of its own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at that point.
a.
On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a
position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency
considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Chuck, I'm not sure what you mean to say with this. Maybe the section you're quoting is not enough to give a comprehensive view of the responsibilities regarding a PDP. Or do you mean to say the council has been in violation of the bylaws by developing policies itself as opposed to *just* managing the process, which the whole GNSO was supposed to cary out? Mawaki --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Actually Mawaki, I think the Bylaws support this view:
"Section 2. ORGANIZATION
The GNSO shall consist of (i) various Constituencies representing particular groups of stakeholders, as described in Section 5 of this Article and (ii) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO."
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:29 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
I fully agree with avri's comments here. Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that
makes some members on the board think that the council should become a management body of working group processes that will elaborate policies.
Mawaki
--- Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:
Hi,
Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for several reasons. Among those reasons:
- There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the constituency. Although most of the constituencies seem to
representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by laws mandating this. I think it is important to maintain
hold their the
possibility that every representative participates as an
individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat. Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require constituency discipline.
- It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the meetings and participate in the discussion.
- The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we would therefore have to take someone's word for it. And while the constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be complete.
- It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might miss a meeting.
I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting
trusted provisions as
part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make
some of its
own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at
that point.
a.
On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy
Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of
on the their
votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a
position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of
constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency
considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information
voting the that
is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Mawaki, I definitely did not mean to imply that the Council was in violation of the Bylaws. The Bylaws do not define what "managing the policy development process" means so I am sure it could be interpreted quite differently by various people. At the same time, I personally believe that effective management is not a manager doing the work but rather a manager leading and coordinating the work, evaluating it, and continuing to improve the process. In my opinion, this is what was intended in the Bylaws. And in the first few years of the DNSO, that is mostly what happened. There were lots of people besides Councilors involved in working groups. Over time though, many became very frustrated by how long it took and the Council started moving to having work done by the Council as a whole and also became much more reliant on voting. I believe the LSE report reflects this and that the Board Governance Committee WG also decided that this was an issue. Interesting, the Council has been moving back in this direction in the last year plus and I think we have had some good successes. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:43 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
Chuck, I'm not sure what you mean to say with this. Maybe the section you're quoting is not enough to give a comprehensive view of the responsibilities regarding a PDP. Or do you mean to say the council has been in violation of the bylaws by developing policies itself as opposed to *just* managing the process, which the whole GNSO was supposed to cary out?
Mawaki
--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Actually Mawaki, I think the Bylaws support this view:
"Section 2. ORGANIZATION
The GNSO shall consist of (i) various Constituencies representing particular groups of stakeholders, as described in Section 5 of this Article and (ii) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO."
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:29 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
I fully agree with avri's comments here. Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that
makes some members on the board think that the council should become a management body of working group processes that will elaborate policies.
Mawaki
--- Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:
Hi,
Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for several reasons. Among those reasons:
- There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the constituency. Although most of the constituencies seem to
representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by laws mandating this. I think it is important to maintain
hold their the
possibility that every representative participates as an
individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat. Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require constituency discipline.
- It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the meetings and participate in the discussion.
- The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we would therefore have to take someone's word for it. And while the constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be complete.
- It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might miss a meeting.
I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting
trusted provisions as
part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make
some of its
own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at
that point.
a.
On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy
Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of
on the their
votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a
position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of
constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency
considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information
voting the that
is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Chuck raises a good point. The current situation is a disenfranchisement and needs correcting. However, the proposal does not get us over the by-laws situation which has brought us to the current state of misery. The by-laws state - as they have done more or less since ICANN began: "Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the GNSO Council through use of ..... ; provided that (a) all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another, ...... (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". It is this provision that Louis Touton interpreted to ALLOW proxy votes. It is this provision that John Jeffreys interpreted to DENY proxy votes. Until we change this by-law , we are sunk and disenfranchised. Philip
Good point Philip. I wonder if it would be helpful to ask John for additional advice regarding what we are considering and how best to pursue it, assuming of course there is interest by other constituencies besides the RyC. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:41 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion Chuck raises a good point. The current situation is a disenfranchisement and needs correcting. However, the proposal does not get us over the by-laws situation which has brought us to the current state of misery. The by-laws state - as they have done more or less since ICANN began: "Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the GNSO Council through use of ..... ; provided that (a) all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another, ...... (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". It is this provision that Louis Touton interpreted to ALLOW proxy votes. It is this provision that John Jeffreys interpreted to DENY proxy votes. Until we change this by-law , we are sunk and disenfranchised. Philip
I certainly support Philip's point that we need to get past this point. Getting additional advice from John seems the logical next step forward. Ute From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 12 July 2007 12:51 To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion Good point Philip. I wonder if it would be helpful to ask John for additional advice regarding what we are considering and how best to pursue it, assuming of course there is interest by other constituencies besides the RyC. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:41 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion Chuck raises a good point. The current situation is a disenfranchisement and needs correcting. However, the proposal does not get us over the by-laws situation which has brought us to the current state of misery. The by-laws state - as they have done more or less since ICANN began: "Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the GNSO Council through use of ..... ; provided that (a) all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another, ...... (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". It is this provision that Louis Touton interpreted to ALLOW proxy votes. It is this provision that John Jeffreys interpreted to DENY proxy votes. Until we change this by-law , we are sunk and disenfranchised. Philip
I agree. I find the prohibition on proxies particularly baffling given that we are all volunteers and have to make it the meetings on our own time and at our own expense. Kristina ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ute Decker Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:00 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion I certainly support Philip's point that we need to get past this point. Getting additional advice from John seems the logical next step forward. Ute From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 12 July 2007 12:51 To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion Good point Philip. I wonder if it would be helpful to ask John for additional advice regarding what we are considering and how best to pursue it, assuming of course there is interest by other constituencies besides the RyC. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:41 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion Chuck raises a good point. The current situation is a disenfranchisement and needs correcting. However, the proposal does not get us over the by-laws situation which has brought us to the current state of misery. The by-laws state - as they have done more or less since ICANN began: "Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a meeting of the GNSO Council through use of ..... ; provided that (a) all members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one another, ...... (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". It is this provision that Louis Touton interpreted to ALLOW proxy votes. It is this provision that John Jeffreys interpreted to DENY proxy votes. Until we change this by-law , we are sunk and disenfranchised. Philip
I don't know that this level of rigor is required or necessary. The only problem with the previous proxy arrangements was that they weren't permitted under ICANN's bylaws. I don't believe that there was any indication of abuse, or other problems associated with this method, other than the fact that it wasn't technically permissable. I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that we need to construct anything more elaborate governing their use than we previously used. i.e. a proxy can only be assigned by the person who holds the vote and that the GNSO Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment by the person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting. Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Ross, why the limitation that proxy must be passed 'prior to the start of the meeting'? I have seen several times where a Councilor was at a meeting but needed to leave before it ended, and sought at that point to give a proxy (which I believe we have accepted that proxy vote on at least a couple occasions). Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTE: This message may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privileges, if you are not the intended recipient then please delete this message and all attachments and notify me as soon as possible. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion I don't know that this level of rigor is required or necessary. The only problem with the previous proxy arrangements was that they weren't permitted under ICANN's bylaws. I don't believe that there was any indication of abuse, or other problems associated with this method, other than the fact that it wasn't technically permissable. I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that we need to construct anything more elaborate governing their use than we previously used. i.e. a proxy can only be assigned by the person who holds the vote and that the GNSO Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment by the person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting. Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full consituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, why the limitation that proxy must be passed 'prior to the start of the meeting'? I have seen several times where a Councilor was at a meeting but needed to leave before it ended, and sought at that point to give a proxy (which I believe we have accepted that proxy vote on at least a couple occasions).
I'm not sure where that specific practice came from, it was just the way we did it :) Glen might be able to provide better insight though. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
As far as I remember passing on a proxy during a meeting was quite common back in the days where we still had this possibility. Given that we are all volunteers, having a regular day job, there is not always time to attend every meeting, hence a simple proxy option is certainly desirable. At least from my recollection there was no misuse of that practice. tom Am 12.07.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, why the limitation that proxy must be passed 'prior to the start of the meeting'? I have seen several times where a Councilor was at a meeting but needed to leave before it ended, and sought at that point to give a proxy (which I believe we have accepted that proxy vote on at least a couple occasions).
I'm not sure where that specific practice came from, it was just the way we did it :)
Glen might be able to provide better insight though.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
I agree that we should reform the bylaws to permit proxy voting, and it sounds like this initiative would have to come from the Board, so perhaps we should have a conversation with the Board on this issue. Robin Thomas Keller wrote:
As far as I remember passing on a proxy during a meeting was quite common back in the days where we still had this possibility. Given that we are all volunteers, having a regular day job, there is not always time to attend every meeting, hence a simple proxy option is certainly desirable. At least from my recollection there was no misuse of that practice.
tom
Am 12.07.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, why the limitation that proxy must be passed 'prior to the start of the meeting'? I have seen several times where a Councilor was at a meeting but needed to leave before it ended, and sought at that point to give a proxy (which I believe we have accepted that proxy vote on at least a couple occasions).
I'm not sure where that specific practice came from, it was just the way we did it :)
Glen might be able to provide better insight though.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Robin Gross wrote:
I agree that we should reform the bylaws to permit proxy voting, and it sounds like this initiative would have to come from the Board, so perhaps we should have a conversation with the Board on this issue.
At the same time, we should request an update on the implementation of this Council resolution; 20061116-5 The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
hi, Yes, it either needs to come from the board. Or if, as requested, the board enables the GNSO council to amend some of it own procedures during the course of their BGCWG recommendations, then we will be able to do it ourselves. If the council wishes to proceed on this before getting the final board decisions on GNSO reform, we could craft a formal request for the change. It might be best to offer specific language we would like to see. I can put this on the next meeting's agenda if so desired. a. On 13 jul 2007, at 11.24, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree that we should reform the bylaws to permit proxy voting, and it sounds like this initiative would have to come from the Board, so perhaps we should have a conversation with the Board on this issue.
Robin
Thomas Keller wrote:
As far as I remember passing on a proxy during a meeting was quite common back in the days where we still had this possibility. Given that we are all volunteers, having a regular day job, there is not always time to attend every meeting, hence a simple proxy option is certainly desirable. At least from my recollection there was no misuse of that practice.
tom
Am 12.07.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, why the limitation that proxy must be passed 'prior to the start of the meeting'? I have seen several times where a Councilor was at a meeting but needed to leave before it ended, and sought at that point to give a proxy (which I believe we have accepted that proxy vote on at least a couple occasions).
I'm not sure where that specific practice came from, it was just the way we did it :)
Glen might be able to provide better insight though.
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
I definitely agree that we should not overly complicate this but I do believe that what was done previously may need to be tweaked. It is one thing to use a proxy when the sole reason is because of inability to attend; it is a very different situation when someone uses a proxy when a conflict of interest exists. In the latter case, I personally think that the Board approach is much more appropriate, i.e., to abstain. To give a proxy to someone who would vote for a position that you would support, seems out of order to me if you have a conflict of interest. Taking that one step further, I also think it would be inappropriate for a councilor to intentionally be absent from a meeting to be able to use a proxy instead of having to abstain in a case where a conflict existed. Regardless of whether proxies are reinstituted or not, it seemed like a no brainer to me that no constituency that has developed a constituency position on an issue should be denied a vote if a rep is unable to attend a meeting. If we really believe in bottom-up processes, why would anyone oppose this? Doing this could be as simple as having a constituency officer (chair, vice chair, etc.) send an email to the Council secretariat and/or chair in advance, with cc's to the constituency reps, validating the constituency position and thereby allowing any one rep to cast all votes on behalf of the constituency. This would in no way require constituencies to adopt positions in advance, but if they did, it would ensure that their positions were fully supported whether all reps were in attendance or not. The way the RyC has dealt with this issue when we vote on critical issues where we want to make sure that all members have opportunity to vote is that we allow the option of extending voting on our email list. Not sure this would work for the Council. And like my proposal above, there may be an issue with the Bylaws, as Philip noted. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:08 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
I don't know that this level of rigor is required or necessary. The only problem with the previous proxy arrangements was that they weren't permitted under ICANN's bylaws. I don't believe that there was any indication of abuse, or other problems associated with this method, other than the fact that it wasn't technically permissible.
I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that we need to construct anything more elaborate governing their use than we previously used. i.e. a proxy can only be assigned by the person who holds the vote and that the GNSO Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment by the person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting.
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a position on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full constituency as determined through the constituencies established processes. As I envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as
Gomes, Chuck wrote: previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticipated issue but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows
simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
meeting but privileged, prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Chuck and all, Are the bylaws clear about what (or whose views) a council member's vote expresses - whether it is an individual responsibility (e.g., based on the rep's understanding of the issue at hand and that of the values/interests of their counstituency, whcih can sometimes differ among reps of the same constituency) or the mere expression of constituency discipline? Or does one model apply for some types of decision, and the others to the rest? What are those types of decision? I think this is important to clarify. Again (I've said this before,) not all consituencies enjoy the same level of homogeneity as RyC, and you may wrongly be taking your assumptions as valid across borders. If the bylaws are silent about that question, then this should be fixed one way or the other, or we should make it clear that it is up to each constituency to decide and mandate its reps the way it wants them to do their job in representing it in the council decision-making processes. BTW, when I once asked about why one could no longer use proxy vote, one of the reasons Bruce gave me as explanation was that, council members need to engage in the whole discussion with their colleagues, hopefully in a constructive approach, in order to determine a final decision/position. Such reason would not make much sense within the context of constituency discipline. Unless one suspends any decision on that issue and gives at least a month to the reps for a pedagigical exercise while playing a detailed remake of the discussion to their constituency. If such such argument had any theoretical sense, the transaction costs would obviously be high enough to take it away. The irony is, sometimes like in san juan, I hear criticism of the council having a parliamentary mode of functioning, and some other times the parallel with a parliamentary model comes across as positive. It is totally irrational and confusing. Mawaki --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I definitely agree that we should not overly complicate this but I do believe that what was done previously may need to be tweaked. It is one thing to use a proxy when the sole reason is because of inability to attend; it is a very different situation when someone uses a proxy when a conflict of interest exists. In the latter case, I personally think that the Board approach is much more appropriate, i.e., to abstain. To give a proxy to someone who would vote for a position that you would support, seems out of order to me if you have a conflict of interest. Taking that one step further, I also think it would be inappropriate for a councilor to intentionally be absent from a meeting to be able to use a proxy instead of having to abstain in a case where a conflict existed.
Regardless of whether proxies are reinstituted or not, it seemed like a no brainer to me that no constituency that has developed a constituency position on an issue should be denied a vote if a rep is unable to attend a meeting. If we really believe in bottom-up processes, why would anyone oppose this? Doing this could be as simple as having a constituency officer (chair, vice chair, etc.) send an email to the Council secretariat and/or chair in advance, with cc's to the constituency reps, validating the constituency position and thereby allowing any one rep to cast all votes on behalf of the constituency. This would in no way require constituencies to adopt positions in advance, but if they did, it would ensure that their positions were fully supported whether all reps were in attendance or not.
The way the RyC has dealt with this issue when we vote on critical issues where we want to make sure that all members have opportunity to vote is that we allow the option of extending voting on our email list. Not sure this would work for the Council. And like my proposal above, there may be an issue with the Bylaws, as Philip noted.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:08 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
I don't know that this level of rigor is required or necessary. The only problem with the previous proxy arrangements was that they weren't permitted under ICANN's bylaws. I don't believe that there was any indication of abuse, or other problems associated with this method, other than the fact that it wasn't technically permissible.
I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that we need to construct anything more elaborate governing their
use than we previously used. i.e. a proxy can only be assigned by the person who holds the vote and that the GNSO Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment by the person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting.
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken
on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full constituency as determined through the constituencies established
envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as
a position processes. As I previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or
anticipated issue
but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
privileged, prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mawaki, Please note my comments below. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; ross@tucows.com Cc: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
Chuck and all,
Are the bylaws clear about what (or whose views) a council member's vote expresses - whether it is an individual responsibility (e.g., based on the rep's understanding of the issue at hand and that of the values/interests of their counstituency, whcih can sometimes differ among reps of the same constituency) or the mere expression of constituency discipline? Or does one model apply for some types of decision, and the others to the rest? What are those types of decision?
No, I do not think the Bylaws define these things. It is up to each constituency, which I think is fine.
I think this is important to clarify. Again (I've said this before,) not all consituencies enjoy the same level of homogeneity as RyC, and you may wrongly be taking your assumptions as valid across borders.
I made no assumptions at all about how other constituencies handle this. My recommendation did not suggest that any constituency should change their mode of operation. But in cases where a constituency has established a position using what ever procedures they use, it seems very clear to me that that constituency should not lose a vote if one of their reps cannot attend.
If the bylaws are silent about that question, then this should be fixed one way or the other, or we should make it clear that it is up to each constituency to decide and mandate its reps the way it wants them to do their job in representing it in the council decision-making processes.
I didn't suggest any change to this.
BTW, when I once asked about why one could no longer use proxy vote, one of the reasons Bruce gave me as explanation was that, council members need to engage in the whole discussion with their colleagues, hopefully in a constructive approach, in order to determine a final decision/position. Such reason would not make much sense within the context of constituency discipline. Unless one suspends any decision on that issue and gives at least a month to the reps for a pedagigical exercise while playing a detailed remake of the discussion to their constituency. If such such argument had any theoretical sense, the transaction costs would obviously be high enough to take it away.
The irony is, sometimes like in san juan, I hear criticism of the council having a parliamentary mode of functioning, and some other times the parallel with a parliamentary model comes across as positive. It is totally irrational and confusing.
Mawaki
--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I definitely agree that we should not overly complicate this but I do believe that what was done previously may need to be tweaked. It is one thing to use a proxy when the sole reason is because of inability to attend; it is a very different situation when someone uses a proxy when a conflict of interest exists. In the latter case, I personally think that the Board approach is much more appropriate, i.e., to abstain. To give a proxy to someone who would vote for a position that you would support, seems out of order to me if you have a conflict of interest. Taking that one step further, I also think it would be inappropriate for a councilor to intentionally be absent from a meeting to be able to use a proxy instead of having to abstain in a case where a conflict existed.
Regardless of whether proxies are reinstituted or not, it seemed like a no brainer to me that no constituency that has developed a constituency position on an issue should be denied a vote if a rep is unable to attend a meeting. If we really believe in bottom-up processes, why would anyone oppose this? Doing this could be as simple as having a constituency officer (chair, vice chair, etc.) send an email to the Council secretariat and/or chair in advance, with cc's to the constituency reps, validating the constituency position and thereby allowing any one rep to cast all votes on behalf of the constituency. This would in no way require constituencies to adopt positions in advance, but if they did, it would ensure that their positions were fully supported whether all reps were in attendance or not.
The way the RyC has dealt with this issue when we vote on critical issues where we want to make sure that all members have opportunity to vote is that we allow the option of extending voting on our email list. Not sure this would work for the Council. And like my proposal above, there may be an issue with the Bylaws, as Philip noted.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:08 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
I don't know that this level of rigor is required or necessary. The only problem with the previous proxy arrangements was that they weren't permitted under ICANN's bylaws. I don't believe that there was any indication of abuse, or other problems associated with this method, other than the fact that it wasn't technically permissible.
I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that we need to construct anything more elaborate governing their
use than we previously used. i.e. a proxy can only be assigned by the person who holds the vote and that the GNSO Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment by the person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting.
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following for consideration by the Council.
It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken
on an issue and one of their Council representatives cannot participate in a meeting. In such a case, it seems reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of the full constituency as determined through the constituencies established
envision this, it would only apply in cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would simply be back to proxy voting as
a position processes. As I previously used.
I am not suggesting this because of any recent or
anticipated issue
but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we encounter such a situation.
Thoughts?
I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting but simply one for list discussion. Depending on the discussion that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
privileged, prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
On 13 jul 2007, at 11.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I made no assumptions at all about how other constituencies handle this. My recommendation did not suggest that any constituency should change their mode of operation. But in cases where a constituency has established a position using what ever procedures they use, it seems very clear to me that that constituency should not lose a vote if one of their reps cannot attend.
I think that in fairness, the type of internal organizational behavior a constituency implements should not have an effect on the voting rights of councilors. I.e., while I favor the proxy approach that was in effect when I joined the council, I have concerns about an approach that would only give such 'proxy' rights to a constituency that worked in one particular way. Additionally, speaking as a nomcom appointee to council, I would hope we, i.e., Nomcom appointees, would have the same proxy capability as any other council member. 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. In this case, it might be necessary for proxies to apply to specific pending votes and for the council member declaring a proxy to specifically declare the absence of any conflict that would force an abstention. a.
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? 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? 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. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
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.
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
I seriously wonder whether the writers of the Bylaws intended that a Council representative could vote however he/she pleased regardless of a constituency position, so it seems to me that this should be fixed in the Bylaws. I agree with Ross that his constituency should not be penalized because he has a conflict of interest as long as their simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position. The intent of my original suggestion was to deal with situations like this. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:19 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
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
of rules governing the use of proxy's, and would strongly
just implemented the old rules as starting point that we could adjust over time. I don't see a need to overthink or overengineer
to take into account "what-if's" that have never come into
simple set prefer if we this simply 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.
I agree with Ross and Chuck on this point: constituency should not be penalized because [a Councilor] has a conflict of interest, as long as there is simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTE: This message may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privileges, if you are not the intended recipient then please delete this message and all attachments and notify me as soon as possible. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:23 AM To: Avri Doria; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion I seriously wonder whether the writers of the Bylaws intended that a Council representative could vote however he/she pleased regardless of a constituency position, so it seems to me that this should be fixed in the Bylaws. I agree with Ross that his constituency should not be penalized because he has a conflict of interest as long as their simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position. The intent of my original suggestion was to deal with situations like this. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:19 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
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
of rules governing the use of proxy's, and would strongly
just implemented the old rules as starting point that we could adjust over time. I don't see a need to overthink or overengineer
to take into account "what-if's" that have never come into
simple set prefer if we this simply 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.
Except I don't agree that that consultation with the constituency is required or necessary. I would prefer that dealing with these details be left to each constituency to sort out. For instance, I'm required to represent the interests and positions of my constituency, and subject to recall provisions when the membership feels that I don't. This extends to all of my formal council activities, including my (former) use of proxies. I don't know if some form of check or double-check is important if we instead rely on constituency self-determination to manage their council rep relationships. Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I agree with Ross and Chuck on this point:
constituency should not be penalized because [a Councilor] has a conflict of interest, as long as there is simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sr. Legal Director
Yahoo! Inc.
NOTE: This message may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privileges, if you are not the intended recipient then please delete this message and all attachments and notify me as soon as possible. Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:23 AM To: Avri Doria; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
I seriously wonder whether the writers of the Bylaws intended that a Council representative could vote however he/she pleased regardless of a constituency position, so it seems to me that this should be fixed in the Bylaws. I agree with Ross that his constituency should not be penalized because he has a conflict of interest as long as their simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position. The intent of my original suggestion was to deal with situations like this.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:19 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
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
That might be okay. But what happens if you are unavailable; wouldn't a communication from an RC officer be useful. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:39 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
Except I don't agree that that consultation with the constituency is required or necessary. I would prefer that dealing with these details be left to each constituency to sort out. For instance, I'm required to represent the interests and positions of my constituency, and subject to recall provisions when the membership feels that I don't. This extends to all of my formal council activities, including my (former) use of proxies. I don't know if some form of check or double-check is important if we instead rely on constituency self-determination to manage their council rep relationships.
I agree with Ross and Chuck on this point:
constituency should not be penalized because [a Councilor] has a conflict of interest, as long as there is simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency that they have taken a specific position
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sr. Legal Director
Yahoo! Inc.
NOTE: This message may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privileges, if you are not the intended recipient
delete this message and all attachments and notify me as soon as possible. Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:23 AM To: Avri Doria; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
I seriously wonder whether the writers of the Bylaws intended that a Council representative could vote however he/she pleased regardless of a constituency position, so it seems to me that this should be fixed in the Bylaws. I agree with Ross that his constituency should not be penalized because he has a conflict of interest as long as their simple confirmation from an officer of his constituency
taken a specific position. The intent of my original suggestion was to deal with situations like this.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:19 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
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
all matters before the GNSO Council, and (c) ICANN adopts and implements means of verifying that (x) a person
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
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
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: then please that they have privileged, prohibited. participating in participating in such possible change. 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
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
That might be okay. But what happens if you are unavailable; wouldn't a communication from an RC officer be useful.
Sort of, but the responsibility to cast my ballot is mine. If I don't cast it or proxy it, then I'm not doing my job. If the constituency isn't happy with that, then they might vote to recall me and replace me with someone else more interested in doing little things like filing a proxy, etc. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hello Chuck,
To give a proxy to someone who would vote for a position that you would support, seems out of order to me if you have a conflict of interest.
Just as a point of information on past examples. When the Council provided advice to the Board on the criteria for the .net bid process, several Council members - including myself chose not to vote due to conflict of interest issues. In fact it is possible that all registrar reps did not vote. In that case we gave the votes to one of the Council members appointed by the Nominating Committee (Alick Wilson) with instructions to vote as he saw fit. At the time Alick did not indicate how he would vote in advance. In other situations I have seen votes given to the chair - to vote as the chair sees fit. The reason I raise this - was in this case there were multiple Council members that did not vote due to possible conflict of interest issues. This approach was discussed with the General Counsel at the time before the meeting - but I can't recall which version of the bylaws we were operating under at the time. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Bruce. It still seems to me that the cleanest way to deal with a conflict of interest is to abstain as Board members do. That is the only way that totally removes the implication of being influenced by the contlict. At the same time, as I have stated in other messages, I do believe that a constituency should still have the right to have its position counted regardless of whether a particular Council member has a conflict or not, so provisions should be made for that. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:51 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
Hello Chuck,
To give a proxy to someone who would vote for a position that you would support, seems out of order to me if you have a conflict of interest.
Just as a point of information on past examples. When the Council provided advice to the Board on the criteria for the .net bid process, several Council members - including myself chose not to vote due to conflict of interest issues. In fact it is possible that all registrar reps did not vote.
In that case we gave the votes to one of the Council members appointed by the Nominating Committee (Alick Wilson) with instructions to vote as he saw fit. At the time Alick did not indicate how he would vote in advance.
In other situations I have seen votes given to the chair - to vote as the chair sees fit.
The reason I raise this - was in this case there were multiple Council members that did not vote due to possible conflict of interest issues.
This approach was discussed with the General Counsel at the time before the meeting - but I can't recall which version of the bylaws we were operating under at the time.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I support Ross here. The simplest method of proxy voting will be best. Responsibility should lie with the Council member only to vote. If they are remiss, so be it. And of course if we introduce proxy votes then it would apply to all Council members. I propose a simple resolution at our next meeting: "The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws and if not advise what by-law change would be needed to enable it" Philip
agree. "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@ aim.be> To Sent by: "'GNSO Council'" owner-council@gns <council@gnso.icann.org> o.icann.org cc Subject 16/07/2007 04:05 RE: [council] Point for Discussion PM (proxy voting) I support Ross here. The simplest method of proxy voting will be best. Responsibility should lie with the Council member only to vote. If they are remiss, so be it. And of course if we introduce proxy votes then it would apply to all Council members. I propose a simple resolution at our next meeting: "The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws and if not advise what by-law change would be needed to enable it" Philip
I concure with this course of action. Lets keep it as simple as possible. More complex rules just leave more room for interpretation. Best, tom Am 16.07.2007 schrieb Philip Sheppard:
I support Ross here. The simplest method of proxy voting will be best. Responsibility should lie with the Council member only to vote. If they are remiss, so be it. And of course if we introduce proxy votes then it would apply to all Council members.
I propose a simple resolution at our next meeting:
"The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws and if not advise what by-law change would be needed to enable it"
Philip
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Hi, I will add this to the agenda. thanks a. On 16 jul 2007, at 04.05, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I support Ross here. The simplest method of proxy voting will be best. Responsibility should lie with the Council member only to vote. If they are remiss, so be it. And of course if we introduce proxy votes then it would apply to all Council members.
I propose a simple resolution at our next meeting:
"The Council would like to introduce a system of proxy voting. Council requests the ICANN General Counsel to confirm EITHER that this is possible under the current by-laws and if not advise what by-law change would be needed to enable it"
Philip
participants (12)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
cyrilchua＠atmdlaw.com.sg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mawaki Chango -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Philip Sheppard -
Robin Gross -
Rosette, Kristina -
Ross Rader -
Thomas Keller -
Ute Decker