RE: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
While I admit I have not been able to keep up with all the traffic on this issue over the past couple of days, Rob's suggestion seems to make sense. I also appreciate his offer to prepare a redline document of Philip's suggestions. Whether via a conference call or on the list, it would be helpful to have two or more reasonably stable options in front of all of us for decision. Steve Metalitz ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:48 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Ken Bour; Julie Hedlund; Liz Gasster; Olga Cavalli Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures Dear Phillip, Stephane, Chuck and OSC Members: Mindful of the recent message exchange earlier today and acknowledging Phillip's note regarding a return to the simplified-approach discussion, as promised in Ken Bour's earlier email, Staff would like to offer an alternative suggestion for streamlining the current SG proxy process that we think addresses the concerns expressed on the list and substantially limits any edits that need to be made to the existing GOP. In this alternate version (see attached), we have simply removed all constraining language from the proxy procedures in Paragraphs 4.5.3 and 4.5.4. If you concur, the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) would remain silent on whether proxies have to be decided, affirmed, confirmed, or even acknowledged in advance. By removing these rules concerning the use of proxies, the existing statement in Section 4.5.1 (Duty of Councilors, Constituencies, and Stakeholder Groups) would prevail: "When exercising his/her voting responsibilities on Council matters, a GNSO Councilor is expected to comply with any obligations prescribed within the applicable Stakeholder Group or Constituency Charter governing Councilor's appointment to the Council. If such Charter procedures are silent with respect to voting guidance, directions, or restrictions, the Councilor may use his/her best informed judgment, unless specifically directed as described in Paragraph 4.5.3-a [Voting Direction] below." We believe this less invasive change to the GOP offers the most flexibility and is preferable because it accomplishes the goals of (a) deferring to SG/C Charters for proxy voting guidance (where applicable) and (b) allowing each Councilor to vote his/her own conscience - unless the appointing organization's charter provides a mechanism to direct how the vote shall be registered. An Abstention Notification Form (or a similar email) would still need to be completed by the appointing organization (except for an NCA) to register the proxy Councilor, but any question regarding voting guidance or direction would be removed from the GOP. Thanks to Ken and Julie for helping to think through this concept and for trying to find a resolution that meets the committee's objectives. I hope the contributions are welcomed. If, after considering this suggestion, the OSC prefers Phillip's original version, we would be happy to develop and circulate a red-line formatted document to clearly identify existing GOP language and Phillip's suggested changes. I note that since Phillip's original message we've now seen some blending/stacking of new issues between the NCA proxies and the SG authorization issue. Now that the potential NCA proxy crisis appears to have been averted, to clarify matters, perhaps the OSC should consider a conference call in the near future rather than continue this discussion via email correspondence? Best, Rob From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:22:19 -0700 To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures Olga, Note that the procedures say that Andrei's proxy be given to Carlos: "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 problem we have been discussing was the following: if you and Andrei had to abstain and both of you wanted to assign a proxy to Carlos, only one of you would have been allowed to do so, unless I am reading the procedures incorrectly. Chuck From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:06 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Ken Bour; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Hoggarth; Julie Hedlund; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures Hi, I plan to attend the conf call on Thursday so I can be the proxi for Andrei. Regards Olga 2011/4/5 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> On Chuck's last point, I am not sure that would be consistent with the way this works for non NCA councillors, as proxies can only be given within the same SG, they do not cover the entire house. I think we have to be careful not to create a situation where the NCAs enjoy benefits that elected councillors do not. Stéphane Le 5 avr. 2011 à 01:03, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : The current GOP limit of one proxy per Council NCA follows the same limitation that is true for each SG Councilor. If, for example, the RySG had two Councilors absent for a meeting (quorum rules notwithstanding), the attending Councilor could still exercise only one proxy vote per motion. The other absent Councilor votes would be recorded as "absent." [Gomes, Chuck] If it is important to maintain this, then we could just allow an NCA to give the proxy to any Councilor in the applicable house.