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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have some questions regarding Section 4.5.3, part b, Proxy Voting:

*         Paragraph ii says "The Council NCA will vote "Yes" or "No" or
"Abstain" according to conscience."  Why is there not an option for the
abstaining NCA to give instructions for how he/she wants to vote like
there is for SG Councilors?  Note that paragraph i for SG Councilors
says "The Proxy Holder must vote "Yes" or "No" according to either a) an
instruction from the appointing organization or b) an instruction from
the absent Councilor, or in the absence of an instruction c) the Proxy
Holder's own conscience."  Is there some reason why the following should
not be considered by paragraph ii: "The Council NCA will vote "Yes" or
"No" or "Abstain" according to an instruction from the absent Councilor,
or in the absence of an instruction the Proxy Holder's own conscience."

*         The next to last paragraph of this section says: "Mutiple
proxies. A GNSO Councilor is not permitted to be a Proxy Holder for more
than one vote for any specific motion. . . ."  What is the reason for
this restriction?  What happens if the NCAs for both houses are absent
in the same meeting and want to give their proxy to the nonvoting NCA?
One way of resolving this possible scenario is to all the nonvoting NCA
to hold up to two proxies in the case where both voting NCAs want to
submit proxies.  Another way would be to allow one of the house NCAs to
assign a proxy to an SG Councilor in the applicable house.

 

Chuck

 

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