AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention - proxy vote - approval by April 15
- To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention - proxy vote - approval by April 15
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:56:39 +0200
I don't recall any reason why we did it the way it's written, too.
Voting instructions from one NCA to the other could be helpful.
There was a general position not to allow "multiple proxies" in order to avoid
potential decisive power in one hand. But I admit that Non-NCAs may have more
choices in transferring their votes to proxyholders than the NCAs have. To
balance this situation I would agree to allow "multiple proxies" in case of the
Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von
Gesendet: Montag, 4. April 2011 21:33
Betreff: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - avoiding abstention - proxy
vote - approval by April 15
Really good questions and I could agree with both suggestions.
I do not remember us having any specific question on these in the WG and they
may just be the result of Mr. Bour's attention to detail that no one in the
group had an objection to. but I may be wrong about this (like about anything
else, I guess)
On 4 Apr 2011, at 13:56, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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.
> 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