<html><head><meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body><div><div style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">I agree with Ron.<br></div></div><hr><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">From: </span><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Ron Andruff</span><br><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">Sent: </span><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">5/18/2012 10:51 AM</span><br><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">To: </span><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</span><br><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting</span><br><br><br>All,<br><br>In the end we need to remind ourselves what is it that we are trying to do<br>in relation to the bigger picture. Allowing proxies to be handed off at<br>will was not the objective of the Working Group that focused on this aspect;<br>rather the focus was to put a process in place to ensure that all SGs votes<br>count in the new bicameral regime that was imposed upon the GNSO after the<br>most recent review and restructuring. There was a great deal of debate and<br>discussion around this as I recall, having been a member of that Working<br>Group along with Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, Ray and others.<br><br>The SCI needs to consider how this process can be streamlined in light of<br>the operating procedures of the various constituencies that make up the SGs,<br>but it should not modify a long-considered process simply to accommodate<br>something that could well be better modified within a constituency or SG.<br><br>Food for thought...<br><br>Kind regards,<br><br>RA<br><br>Ronald N. Andruff<br>RNA Partners, Inc.<br><br> <br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:33 PM<br>To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting<br><br><br>Hi,<br><br>the bug is not the requirement for advance notice. the bug as i see it is<br>that advance notice has to be come long before and excludes the chance for a<br>last minute proxy.<br><br>avri<br><br><br>avri<br><br><br>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:<br><br>>I personally do not know the background on this issue in terms of what<br>>happened with the NCSG. On a more general level, with respect to the<br>>task assigned to the SCI sub group on this issue, I believe that a<br>>notice of proxy "before the first vote" of the meeting is way too late.<br>>It suggests that the proxy will arrive at the meeting, not hear any of<br>>the discussion on the issue, and then simply vote even if he or she has<br>>not participated in the discussion. My understanding of a proxy is<br>>that the vote could in fact go either way because the person holding<br>>the proxy is entitled to participate in the discussion and then vote<br>>according to his/her best judgment afte full hearing and discussion.<br>><br>>I do not see requiring advance notice as a "bug." I gather that with<br>>the structure discussed in today's meeting, each sub-group will be<br>>working independently and coming back to the full SCI, but since Avri<br>>sent this to everyone, I decided to respond.<br>><br>>Thank you,<br>>Anne<br>><br>>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>>Of Counsel<br>>Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700<br>>One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>>Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725<br>>AAikman@LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<br>>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.<br>>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information<br>>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.<br>>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the<br>>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are<br>>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or<br>>copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication<br>>was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the<br>>original message.<br>><br>>-----Original Message-----<br>>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:31 AM<br>>To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>>Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proxy Voting<br>><br>><br>>Hi,<br>><br>><br>>I am not sure I can make today's meeting but will try. In any case I<br>>wanted to lay out my issues related to this topic.<br>><br>>I feel there has been an adamant resistence to the idea of reviewing or<br>>changing the rules on proxy voting ever since the issue was sent to the<br>>SC. Part of this has felt accusatory. To my ears it has sounded<br>>something like: "the NCSG did something we disapproave of, and that is<br>>no reason to change the rules."<br>><br>>And of course, a hard case is no reason to change the rules (to badly<br>>parapharase the important quote)<br>><br>>However, if indeed there is a hole in the process, it should be<br>>reviewed, no matter how much you don't like the reason for discovering<br>>the hole in the rules.<br>><br>>The reason we instituted the rules is that there was consensus that the<br>>long standing practice of having proxies was fair becasue as a group we<br>>did not beleive in denying an SG or a Constituency its full vote when<br>>an absence was known about. And I assume we all still think this is<br>>the right thing to do. What we did to correct the adhoc way we were<br>>doing things was formalize a process.<br>><br>>The process we have now works very well when one knows at least a day<br>>in advance of an absence. But it is a time consuming practice that is<br>>labor intensive in that it requires the GNSO secretariat to take an<br>>action; i.e Glen has to receive the form from the appropriate<br>>authority and process it and then inform the g-council of the proxy.<br>><br>>We also have a procedure that works when someone has to leave a meeting<br>>they are already at.<br>><br>>What we don't have is a procedure that works when someone finds out<br>>just before the meeting that they have a situation and must beg out at<br>>the last minute - the procedure does not work that quickly.<br>><br>>I personally beleive that there is a hole in our procedure if advising<br>>a day before the start of the meetings works and advising after the<br>>meeting starts works but advising just before the meeting starts<br>>doesn't. Anyone who wrote a computer program like that would need to<br>>fix the bug.<br>><br>>I think part of the problem is in the procedure:<br>><br>>Why does this process need to be labor intensive and require the GNSO<br>>secretariat to receive the message in a timely manner and perform a<br>>forwarding of the message. If the procedure not only sent a message to<br>>the Secretariat notifying her of the situation but also sent a note to<br>>the GNSO, the problematic timing window could be minimaized if not<br>>closed. The policy calls for the sending to Glen, but does not require<br>>that she be watching her email up to the last second before the meeting<br>>started, the timing window was introdiced by the way the procedure was<br>>implemented. Fixing the procedure is one way to mostly remedy the<br>>problem without making a change.<br>><br>>But I also thimk we should consider ammending the process to make sure<br>>the window is closed and that we are applying the same reasoning to all<br>>cases, we could recommend modifying the policy to replace:<br>><br>>"<br>>Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO<br>>Secretariat before the start of the relevant meeting.<br>>"<br>><br>>to<br>><br>>"<br>>Ordinarily a proxy notification must be received by the GNSO<br>>Secretariat before the first vote of the relevant meeting.<br>>"<br>><br>>So I recommend that<br>><br>>a. we ask staff whether it is possible to have the notification copied<br>>to the GNSO list, as Glen usually does by hand, so that all can see it<br>>at the same time as the secretariat<br>><br>>b. we consider a minor ammendment to the charter.<br>><br>>I know this is seen as an NCSG only issues, but I am sure that at some<br>>point each and every SG/C will find themselves thwarted by the timing<br>>window that is currently exists in our policy+procedures<br>><br>>thanks<br>><br>>avri<br>><br>><br>>Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:<br>><br>>>Dear SC members,<br>>><br>>>Here is some information concerning proxy voting that may be useful<br>>for<br>>>our discussion during today's call. See the current procedures below.<br>>>Changes to the proxy voting procedures (and other procedures relating<br>>>to voting) were approved by the GNSO Council in September 2011. The<br>>>purpose of the revisions was to simply and clarify the procedures and<br>>>avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies.<br>>><br>>>The issue that has been raised for today's discussion relates to<br>>>proxies. In particular, at a recent Council meeting one council<br>>member<br>>>couldn't attend but his SG wasn't in the position to provide a proxy<br>>in<br>>>the formal way according to the rules. So one of the questions was<br>>>whether and under which conditions a present member of her/his group<br>>>could - on his behalf - declare what may be her/his intention re the<br>>>proxy. In addition the question should be dealt with whether the<br>>>council has to accept this request.<br>>><br>>>Best regards,<br>>><br>>>Julie<br>>><br>>><br>>>4.6 Proxy Voting<br>>><br>>>An abstaining or absent Council member as defined above (the Proxy<br>>>Giver) may transfer his or her vote to any other Council member (the<br>>>Proxy Holder).<br>>><br>>>The Proxy Holder must vote in order of precedence according to one of<br>>>three types:<br>>><br>>>1. An instruction from the Proxy Giver's appointing organization<br>>>(if applicable), or if none;<br>>><br>>>2. An instruction from the Proxy Giver, or in the absence of<br>>>either;<br>>><br>>>3. The Proxy Holder's own conscience.<br>>><br>>>a. Multiple Proxies<br>>><br>>>A GNSO Council member is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more<br>>>than one Proxy Giver.<br>>><br>>>b. Quorum<br>>><br>>>An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy<br>>>has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section<br>>4.7-Temporary<br>>>Alternate <#_4.7_Temporary_Alternate_3> below) if present, would<br>>count<br>>>toward quorum.<br>>><br>>>c. Proxy Notification<br>>><br>>>A proxy notification must be sent to the GNSO Secretariat and should<br>>>indicate which type it is. The notification should, where applicable,<br>>>be sent by the Proxy Giver's appointing organization. Ordinarily a<br>>>proxy notification must be received by the GNSO Secretariat before the<br>>>start of the relevant meeting.<br>>><br>>>Exceptionally, a proxy notification may be given during a meeting by a<br>>>Council member who is present but needs to leave before a vote. In<br>>all<br>>>cases the most recent notification takes precedence.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>>________________________________<br>><br>>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to<br>>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.<br>><br>>Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900<br>>Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400<br>>Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380<br>><br>>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity<br>>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the<br>>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering<br>>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any<br>>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly<br>>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please<br>>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by<br>>return E-Mail or by telephone.<br>><br>>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you<br>>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not<br>>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer<br>>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the<br>>taxpayer.<br><br></body></html>