RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification

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

Ken,

Why did the GCOT decide that the voting direction option should not
apply to absences?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ken Bour
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:16 PM
> To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> 
> 
> Philip:
> 
> In answer to your question, it might be helpful to understand that the
> GOP
> defines two types of abstentions:  volitional and obligational.   The
> latter
> category occurs when some personal or professional conflict arises
with
> respect to a motion (a.k.a. "conflict of interest").   Volitional
> abstentions include the following types of situations (illustrative)
> that a
> Councilor might encounter:
>    - Perception of being inadequately informed
>    - Has not participated in relevant discussions or studied available
> materials
>    - Lacks sufficient understanding, expertise, or technical knowledge
> 
> When the GCOT first started working on voting remedies, they only
> applied to
> the above abstentions.  Later, it occurred to the GCOT that voting
> remedies
> should also be available for incidental absence and even more
permanent
> situations such as leaves and vacancies.  Because the entire section
on
> abstentions and remedies had already been drafted, the GCOT recognized
> that,
> for an absence, all that a Councilor would have to do is declare a
> voluntary
> abstention (added 4th reason = I cannot be present) and the voting
> remedies
> become available without having to perform major surgery on the
> procedures.
> In essence, an abstention is interpreted to mean, quite simply, "I
> choose
> not to vote" and it can be declared for any number of legitimate
> reasons
> including non-attendance.
> 
> I understand how this construct might appear confusing (i.e., absence
-
> >
> abstention); however, I assure you that no deception was ever
intended.
> Everything summarized above is thoroughly documented within Sections
> 3.8 and
> 4.5 of the GOP.
> 
> If you have any additional questions, I will do my best to address
> them.
> The GCOT's development of these procedures, as you can imagine, was
> intense
> and challenging and took the better part of a year to accomplish.  I
> retained in my archives every email and document version from the
> earliest
> drafts (Fall 2009).  We also have the audio recordings of GCOT
> meetings.
> With a bit of research, I should be able to reconstruct the logic tree
> for
> practically every consensus decision made.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ken Bour
> 
> P.S.  The Voting Direction remedy does not apply in the case of an
> absence -
> only an abstention caused by some conflicting situation.  Also, when
> Voting
> Direction does apply, it can only come from an Appointing
Organization,
> not
> another Councilor.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
> Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> 
> 
> Thanks Ken,
> I hoped had had caught this is my point 2 but your detail is most
> helpful.
> 
> Personally, I find the idea of declaring an abstention when in fact
its
> an
> absence to be odd.
> At best it is confusing, at worst deceptive (especially if a voting
> direction is then provided by the absent Councilor) !
> 
> I'd be interested to learn why this construction was invented.
> 
> Philip