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