Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention - proxy vote - approval by April 15

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with Philip's interpretation.

The previous language was interpreted by some as forcing the NCSG, and any 
other SG/C that may not habitually enforce voting discipline (I understand the 
practice is not universal), to do so.  The form that was put out for proxy  
made it obvious that it was intending that the SG/C have to give definitive 
directions to the proxy holder - we got around this by asking the proxy voter 
and the council member being proxied, how they wanted to vote and then telling 
them to vote that way - but it was a bit awkward.  

This language makes it clear that it is optional - SG/Cs that wish to enforce 
proxy vote discipline are still free to do so.

I support this new language.


a.

On 31 Mar 2011, at 11:18, philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:

> 
> Thank Ray.
> It is important to understand this intent.
> The issue for the NCUC was that they believed the original wording obliged
> them to do something they could not.
> The revised wording has the same objective as your original intent.
> Philip
> ------------------------
>> To clarify from WG perspective, a respective SG/C charter would have to be
>> "brought inline" in order to take advantage of the new proxy procedure
>> being
>> recommended.  But the autonomy to do so (update of the charter) was to
>> left
>> to each SG/C to decide on their own if they wanted to.  The proxy
>> procedures
>> were not intended for those SG/C's that have chosen not to capture it,
>> which
>> is where I will agree with Ron.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hope this helps.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ray
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Ron Andruff
>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:33 AM
>> To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention -
>> proxy vote - approval by April 15
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Philip,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am confused.  Can you clarify for me (others?) if the yellow highlighted
>> text is new suggested language?  If so, it is significant language
>> changes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich and I were on the work team that developed the proxy voting
>> language (with Ken Bour from staff) and it was my understanding (W-U
>> please
>> correct me if I am wrong) that all constituency charters would, following
>> GNSO approval of this new procedure, be brought inline with the new proxy
>> voting procedures.   If that has not happened, then that is what needs to
>> be
>> done, in my view.  I do not think that the OSC should try to wordsmith
>> something to fit an irregularity that needs to be codified in all
>> constituency charters.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ronald N. Andruff
>> 
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  _____
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Philip Sheppard
>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:12 AM
>> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention - proxy
>> vote - approval by April 15
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For approval April 15
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> As the OSC may be aware Council raised some concern with the current rules
>> on proxy voting.
>> 
>> Proxy voting is allowed as one remedy to avoid an abstention.
>> 
>> The source of the concern was that the Council rules assumed the existence
>> of procedures in Constituency charters that were not universal.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I attach a proposed version that avoids this assumption while retaining
>> the
>> essence of the proxy option.
>> 
>> I have also taken the opportunity to simplify language in this section to
>> avoid ambiguity.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please may I have your approval to recommend this change to Council?
>> 
>> Deadline is April 15.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Philip Sheppard
>> 
>> OSC Chair
>> 
>> 
> 
>