[gnso-osc-ops] WG: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures e.a.

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Team,
 
prior to the GCOT call next week I'd like to share some questions which came up 
during the council meeting yesterday with regards to "abstentions" and in 
particular "proxy voting" as settled in the rules of procedure.
 
My personal question was whether abstentions in general may be not permitted 
without going through the SG/constit. consultation process in advance (as 
described in the rules). That was denied by Rob Hoggarth.
 
The same question was raised regarding proxy voting (see attached 
correspondence). Here it was answered in the affirmative.
 
I think we should take some minutes to reach clear understanding.
 


Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

  _____  

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. September 2010 22:36
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures



Thanks Chuck. I had read that very article as I prepared for today's meeting 
yesterday, as I was looking at the various links pertaining to absences and 
voting that Glen sent to the Council list before this meeting. 

I did not have the same understanding as you re the requirement to request for 
a proxy in advance of the meeting (where does it say that in sub-section i. 
below?). I would argue that in Tim's case, the appointing organization, i.e. 
the RrSG, had established a position. This was not 'stated' on the public 
Council list, but article i. does not say this should be done in this way. I 
agree there is ambiguity here and my intent is not to second-guess the decision 
you made in today's meeting. But as this processes are still a bit new to us 
all, I just want to make sure we iron out some of the wrinkles so that if we 
have this type of situation again, we know how to handle it.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 8 sept. 2010 à 19:25, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :


Here is my response to Stéphane's question regarding the GNSO Operating 
Procedures (GOP) requirements regarding proxy voting.

Here is the applicable excerpt from the GOP, Section 4.5.3.b, Remedies:

"Proxy Voting


 

The second method to be considered in avoiding the consequences of an 
abstention is the use of proxy voting, where the vote of an abstaining 
Councilor is transferred to another GNSO Councilor.


 

i. For abstentions declared by Councilors not appointed by the Nominating 
Committee and where voting direction is not a viable remedy, the appointing 
organization may transfer the vote of the abstaining Councilor to: (1) the 
House Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA), (2) another of its Constituency 
Councilors (where applicable), or (3) another Councilor within the Stakeholder 
Group. The appointing organization must be able to establish an affirmative or 
negative voting position, subject to provisions contained in its Charter or 
Bylaws, on the applicable measure/motion for which one of its Councilors has 
declared an intention to abstain. The Councilor to whom the vote is transferred 
shall exercise a vote in line with the appointing organization's stated 
position. 

ii. If an abstention is declared by a House NCA, once formal notification has 
occurred pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph 4.5.4-a, a proxy is 
automatically transferred to the GNSO Council's unaffiliated NCA (hereinafter 
Council NCA) and any vote cast will be counted within the House to which the 
abstaining NCA is assigned. The Council NCA may exercise only one proxy at a 
time; therefore, the first abstention remedy properly transferred to the 
Council NCA, including all measures/motions specified, takes precedence. It 
should be noted that, because NCAs do not have an appointing organization, as 
defined in these procedures (see Section 1.3.1), to provide specific voting 
direction, the Council NCA may exercise his/her best judgment, including 
abstaining, on the matter at issue. If the Council NCA abstains or does not 
cast a vote for any other reason, no further remedies are available and the 
automatic proxy will be nullified. The original House NCA will be recorded in 
the minutes as having abstained from the vote."

If I interpret the above correctly, for proxies to have been allowed in today's 
meeting the following would have need to have happened in advance:  The 
appointing organization of the Councilor who has to abstain (because of planned 
absence or other reasons) "must be able to establish an affirmative or negative 
voting position" and that would have needed to have sent to Secretary.  I 
believe Staff has prepared a template to facilitate this.  That did not happen 
in any of the cases where proxies were requested today.

I cc'd Rob and Ken so that they can correct me if my interpretation is in error.

Chuck