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: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:26:05 -0500


Some comments on the issues.

On 6 Apr 2011, at 10:18, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 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.

If the council members want so abstain then they don't need  a remedy.  Perhaps 
there needs to be a provision for them to submit a statement to that effect.

>> 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.

Physical people count for quorum not their virtuality as represented in proxies.


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy