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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

My answers below. LOL about the 2 "l"s.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 6 avr. 2011 à 17:14, Philip Sheppard a écrit :

> Stephane,
> see below for answers
> Philip
> 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?
SVG: No, no need for a rule, this seems like a good solution.
> 
> 
> 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).
SVG: Sorry, I am obviously being stupid here but I still don't get it. If the 
PG gives instructions that he wishes to abstain from a vote, then surely the PH 
should be required to abstain as per those instructs, not vote either yes or no.
> 
> 
> 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.
SVG: Can Staff comment please? This does not make sense to me.
>  
>  
>