ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3

  • To: <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3
  • From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:14:18 +0200

see below for answers
PS I agree councillor has two letters L but was abiding by the present text
rules !
An abstaining or absent Councillor as defined above (the Proxy Giver) may
transfer their vote to any other Councillor (the Proxy Holder).  

So here we are clearly saying that a proxy may be transferred to any Councillor,
no matter what house the Proxy Giver is, right? 
PJS: Correct. In discussion and trying to treat all Councillors equally, this
solution seemed the simplest. Clearly, practice will typically be to go to your
own constituency, SG or House first but why do we need a rule?

If the Proxy Giver abstains: the Proxy Holder must vote "Yes" or "No" according
to either:

a) an instruction from the appointing organization (if applicable) or 

b) the Proxy Holder's own conscience. 

Why? If the Proxy Giver abstains, why should that not be an abstention by the
Proxy Holder? 
PJS: This is logical. The above is a REMEDY to prevent an abstention from a
Council member present at the meeting. (There is no absence here).

Quorum. A Councillor abstaining on a vote, if present at the meeting, does count
toward quorum. A Proxy Holder does not count twice toward quorum. 

Why? If a valid proxy has been given, then the required number of votes are
there and surely that is what the quorum is trying to achieve: make sure the
required number of votes are there?
PJS: This was the rule already prevailing. It follows usual practice in
deliberative assemblies.
ICANN staff may have more to say on this.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy