Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - v7

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Philip,

ICANN Legal Staff have reviewed your latest draft of the proxy language and
they think that some of the issues raised were addressed in the draft,
though there are still some items that may warrant further consideration as
indicated below.

Please let me know if you have any questions for me or the Legal Staff.

Best regards,

Julie

The initial list of questions was:

> 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?

Some items remaining for discussion are:
Abstention/Absence:  The allowance for the use of a proxy in the case of an
abstention could raise some concerns, as it currently would allow the proxy
giver to abstain from voting, yet still direct the proxy holder to vote in a
certain way.  The WT may wish to consider some additional protections
against this, such as noting this Proxy type B is not applicable in the case
of abstention.

Time for issuance of proxy: The notification of a proxy given during the
course of a meeting may raise some conflict if the absent councilor is from
an SG/Constituency that would otherwise create a voting direction in the
case of an absence.  This is similar to one of the questions noted above.

There may be some benefit in discussion whether some sort of time
limitation/process around proxy notification, recognizing that some of that
process may be in the SG/Constituency charters.  One easy way to address
this could be to include a prohibition on the exercise of a proxy outside of
the appointing-organization process IF the appointing organization a)
requires notification of anticipated proxy situations to allow for voting
direction; and b) the absent/abstaining councilor did not make use of that
process.  


On 5/18/11 3:17 PM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Dear Philip,
> 
> I have forwarded this latest version to Legal Staff and I think that they
> will have comments/suggestions for you and the OSC to consider.  I will
> forward them as soon as I receive them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 5/16/11 11:00 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Please see a v7 with the useful addition suggested by Wolf and supported by
>> Avri.
>> -------------------
>> In view of the comments from Legal, I propose this new version of the rules.
>> I have highlighted in yellow changes (all additions) from v5 and in pink from
>> v6.
>> 
>> Comments, expressions of support with a view to OSC adoption by May 26
>> please.
>> 
>> Philip
>> OSC Chair
> 
>