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