Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3
Hi, 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. yep >> >> >> 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. a.