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

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

Please see my responses below Stéphane.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by 
April 15 - v3

 

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.

[Gomes, Chuck] Agree





 

 

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.

[Gomes, Chuck] I think there are two different situations that come into play 
here: 1) an abstention because of a personal or professional conflict when the 
Proxy Giver is present in the meeting; 2) an abstention when the Proxy Giver is 
absent.  The language above works for the first case.  In the second case, I 
think Stéphane may be correct that the Proxy Holder must vote 'Yes' or 'No' or 
'Abstain', but it is probably a mute point because an 'Abstain' has the same 
effect as a 'No' although it sends a different message.  For simplicity, it 
might be better to leave it as it is.





 

 

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.

[Gomes, Chuck] In my understanding, one of the values of having a quorum is to 
ensure that a minimum number of members are present to conduct business 
including participation in the discussion of that business.  If I am correct on 
that, then it makes sense that a proxy holder does not count twice toward 
quorum.  Also, if we counted a Proxy Holder twice, shouldn't we also count an 
absentee ballot as part of the quorum?  I don't think that would be a good 
idea.  I support the existing language and think that the GCOT considered these 
issues carefully and came up with the best approach.