Dear SC members, Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies. The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request. Best regards, Julie 4.6 Proxy Voting An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder). The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types: 1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver’s appointing organization (if applicable), or if none; 2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either; 3. The Proxy Holder’s own conscience. a. Multiple Proxies A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver. b. Quorum An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum. c. Proxy Notification A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
Hi, I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic. I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules." And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote) However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules. The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process. The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy. We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at. What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly. I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug. I think part of the problem is in the procedure: Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change. But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace: " Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. " to " Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. " So I recommend that a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter. I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures thanks avri Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver’s appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder’s own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late. It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion. I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to everyone, I decided to respond. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting Hi, I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic. I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules." And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote) However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules. The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process. The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy. We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at. What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly. I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug. I think part of the problem is in the procedure: Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change. But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace: " Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. " to " Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. " So I recommend that a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter. I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures thanks avri Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver’s appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder’s own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Hi, the bug is not the requirement for advance notice. the bug as i see it is that advance notice has to be come long before and excludes the chance for a last minute proxy. avri avri "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late. It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.
I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to everyone, I decided to respond.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting
Hi,
I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic.
I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules."
And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote)
However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules.
The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process.
The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy.
We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at.
What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly.
I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug.
I think part of the problem is in the procedure:
Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change.
But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace:
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. "
to
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. "
So I recommend that
a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat
b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.
I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures
thanks
avri
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver’s appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder’s own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
All, In the end we need to remind ourselves what is it that we are trying to do in relation to the bigger picture. Allowing proxies to be handed off at will was not the objective of the Working Group that focused on this aspect; rather the focus was to put a process in place to ensure that all SGs votes count in the new bicameral regime that was imposed upon the GNSO after the most recent review and restructuring. There was a great deal of debate and discussion around this as I recall, having been a member of that Working Group along with Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, Ray and others. The SCI needs to consider how this process can be streamlined in light of the operating procedures of the various constituencies that make up the SGs, but it should not modify a long-considered process simply to accommodate something that could well be better modified within a constituency or SG. Food for thought... Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:33 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting Hi, the bug is not the requirement for advance notice. the bug as i see it is that advance notice has to be come long before and excludes the chance for a last minute proxy. avri avri "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late. It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.
I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to everyone, I decided to respond.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting
Hi,
I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic.
I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules."
And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote)
However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules.
The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process.
The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy.
We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at.
What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly.
I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug.
I think part of the problem is in the procedure:
Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change.
But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace:
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. "
to
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. "
So I recommend that
a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat
b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.
I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures
thanks
avri
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver's appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder's own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
If I recollect correctly from the former working group discussions there is a difference in how the various SGs/constituencies may handle proxies in their respective charters. E.g. the ISPs have imposed a kind of "mandatory voting" meaning that the council rep (and her/his proxy if coming from the ISP constituency) has to follow the constituency instruction in voting. So a certain time is needed to hand over the proxy including the voting instruction and the rationale of. To my knowledge e.g. the NCSG process is different in that respect since not requiring an instructive vote. I wonder whether this could be taken into consideration during the discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Ron Andruff Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Mai 2012 16:50 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting All, In the end we need to remind ourselves what is it that we are trying to do in relation to the bigger picture. Allowing proxies to be handed off at will was not the objective of the Working Group that focused on this aspect; rather the focus was to put a process in place to ensure that all SGs votes count in the new bicameral regime that was imposed upon the GNSO after the most recent review and restructuring. There was a great deal of debate and discussion around this as I recall, having been a member of that Working Group along with Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, Ray and others. The SCI needs to consider how this process can be streamlined in light of the operating procedures of the various constituencies that make up the SGs, but it should not modify a long-considered process simply to accommodate something that could well be better modified within a constituency or SG. Food for thought... Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:33 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting Hi, the bug is not the requirement for advance notice. the bug as i see it is that advance notice has to be come long before and excludes the chance for a last minute proxy. avri avri "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late. It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.
I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to everyone, I decided to respond.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting
Hi,
I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic.
I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules."
And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote)
However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules.
The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process.
The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy.
We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at.
What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly.
I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug.
I think part of the problem is in the procedure:
Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change.
But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace:
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. "
to
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. "
So I recommend that
a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat
b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.
I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures
thanks
avri
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver's appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder's own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
That's true to some extent, Wolf-Ulrich, though for clarity's sake here's what the NCSG process amounts to: there is a membership-wide conference call held before each GNSO Council meeting (usually a day or so in advance), during which each upcoming vote before the Council is discussed and a position, where possible, determined based on discussions that include prior listserv postings. Councilors can "vote their own conscience" but this does not generally happen where there is a clear SG position. In all cases, a Councilor that needs a proxy informs his/her proxy as well as the rest of the NCSG Councilors and the SG Chair (usually through our policy committee email list or Skype group chat) of his/her vote so the whole policy committee knows how each Councilor will be voting. In the case that raised the issue, the need for a proxy did not arise until the very last minute. The voting would have been the same - and known to all NCSG Councilors and members listening in to the Council call - regardless of whether the Councilor or her proxy was the one casting the vote. The problem was therefore one purely of timing and the relatively clunky nature of the form-filling and notification that is currently required, which does not allow for flexibility in these types of exceptional circumstances. Any amendments we suggest must of course be on an exceptional, emergency basis. What I'd like to see is the ability to accept a proxy on such a basis if it is done prior to the discussion of the agenda item in question (i.e. sometime before the vote - the proxy ought to be present for the pre-vote discussion), and provided there is documentation or other evidence that can show that a proxy was properly appointed according to the relevant SG processes. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> To:<randruff@rnapartners.com>, <avri@acm.org>, <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Date: 5/28/2012 2:16 AM Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting If I recollect correctly from the former working group discussions there is a difference in how the various SGs/constituencies may handle proxies in their respective charters. E.g. the ISPs have imposed a kind of "mandatory voting" meaning that the council rep (and her/his proxy if coming from the ISP constituency) has to follow the constituency instruction in voting. So a certain time is needed to hand over the proxy including the voting instruction and the rationale of. To my knowledge e.g. the NCSG process is different in that respect since not requiring an instructive vote. I wonder whether this could be taken into consideration during the discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Ron Andruff Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Mai 2012 16:50 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting All, In the end we need to remind ourselves what is it that we are trying to do in relation to the bigger picture. Allowing proxies to be handed off at will was not the objective of the Working Group that focused on this aspect; rather the focus was to put a process in place to ensure that all SGs votes count in the new bicameral regime that was imposed upon the GNSO after the most recent review and restructuring. There was a great deal of debate and discussion around this as I recall, having been a member of that Working Group along with Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, Ray and others. The SCI needs to consider how this process can be streamlined in light of the operating procedures of the various constituencies that make up the SGs, but it should not modify a long-considered process simply to accommodate something that could well be better modified within a constituency or SG. Food for thought... Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:33 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting Hi, the bug is not the requirement for advance notice. the bug as i see it is that advance notice has to be come long before and excludes the chance for a last minute proxy. avri avri "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late. It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.
I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to everyone, I decided to respond.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting
Hi,
I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic.
I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules."
And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote)
However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules.
The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process.
The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy.
We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at.
What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly.
I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug.
I think part of the problem is in the procedure:
Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change.
But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace:
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. "
to
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. "
So I recommend that
a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat
b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.
I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures
thanks
avri
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver's appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder's own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Hi, You are right about beforte the first vote being too late. How about before that start of the first discussion of a motion. As I say, I think this is a problem that every SG/C will expereince some day, and if we are serious about not risking that any SG/C lose its vote on a motion, then we need to be lenient in allowing time for remedies to take place. avri "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late. It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.
I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri sent this to everyone, I decided to respond.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting
Hi,
I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic.
I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is no reason to change the rules."
And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly parapharase the important quote)
However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering the hole in the rules.
The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were doing things was formalize a process.
The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy.
We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting they are already at.
What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly.
I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to fix the bug.
I think part of the problem is in the procedure:
Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the problem without making a change.
But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace:
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting. "
to
" Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting. "
So I recommend that
a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it at the same time as the secretariat
b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.
I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures
thanks
avri
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SC members,
Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful for our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below. Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.
The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council member couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy in the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the council has to accept this request.
Best regards,
Julie
4.6 Proxy Voting
An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the Proxy Holder).
The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of three types:
1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver’s appointing organization (if applicable), or if none;
2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of either;
3. The Proxy Holder’s own conscience.
a. Multiple Proxies
A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more than one Proxy Giver.
b. Quorum
An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would count toward quorum.
c. Proxy Notification
A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable, be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.
Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In all cases the most recent notification takes precedence.
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
Julie Hedlund -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Ron Andruff