[council] Point for Discussion
Ross Rader
ross at tucows.com
Fri Jul 13 17:29:01 UTC 2007
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
More information about the council
mailing list