Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - v5

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Philip,

The following are some operational questions from the ICANN Legal staff that
you may wish to consider in the revision of the proxy procedures.

Best regards,
Julie


The prior Operating Procedure sections on absentee/proxy voting were formed
with a focus on encouraging attendance and participation at council
meetings.  Staff urges that any changes to the proxy voting/absentee section
be drafted in a way to maximize attendance and participation.  Some examples
of terms that maximize attendance are the stated expectation of councilor
attendance/participation; the limitation of the number of proxies any
councilor may hold; quorum requirements; and attendance requirements.

Many of these protections are already in the Operating Procedures, though
you may wish to consider if any provisions should or could be strengthened

Operational questions:
What kind of record is required for the issuance of a proxy vote?
Who should the proxy notice be provided to?  What happens in the event of a
superceding proxy designation?  (Example: Recent vote on RAA Amendment issue
had some confusion over conflicting reports of who would hold an absent
councilor's proxy.)
What amount of notice is required for the declaration of a proxy?  (Example:
Stakeholder Group or Constituency has a process to direct voting in the
event of a councilor absence; councilor declares absence without enough time
to initiate the SG/Constituency process.  May the absent councilor designate
a proxy?)
Should there be any difference in the process for abstention as opposed to
absence?
Should there be an opportunity for any house-level requirements for proxy
voting?


On 4/21/11 4:40 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> In view of the pending legal advice, we will defer further action on the new
> proxy text until we learn more.
> 
> Philip
>