Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - v7 - Further comments from legal staff

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

+1 

one comment in line

On 26 May 2011, at 09:46, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 
> Dear OSC,
> ICANN legal staff has raised two further questions on proxy votes based on our
> v7.
> On consideration I am inclined to recommended we note them but leave the text
> unchanged.
> 
> REASONING
> 1. Unlike legal, we are seeking rules that are clear and simple. We are not
> seeking to anticipate every hypothetical issue that may occur if a Councilor
> acts in bad faith.
> 2. I find the likelihood of either scenario raised below sufficiently unlikely
> to not justify adding complexity.
> 
> SPECIFICS
> a) Our rules allow a proxy in the case of an abstention and allows the proxy
> giver to direct the way the proxy holder votes.
> TRUE.
> However, our rules say the preference is to get direction from the 
> Constituency.
> Further, a Councilor acting in good faith should still be able to say: "I wish
> to  abstain for reasons of a potential conflict but I recognise the way my
> constituency would wish me to vote". 
> It would be an act of bad faith for a Councilor to pass on a conflicted vote 
> to
> a proxy holder against the will of the constituency.
> Bad faith should be dealt with elsewhere.

The remedy is really there for the council members legal requirements.  If they 
tell the person how to vote on a abstention then it really isn't an abstention 
so they have defeated the remedy they themselves needed.

> 
> b)  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.  
> TRUE. 
> However, practicality suggests our rule is the best way to handle this.
> Further, if the Councilor acts in bad faith against the will of the
> constituency, that should be dealt with elsewhere.
> 
> Your comments please.
> Deadline 1 June.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
>