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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vanda,

 

Thanks for the comments Vanda.  Please note my responses from the RySG 
perspective below.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Vanda UOL
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:09 AM
To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Philip Sheppard'
Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RES: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - v7

 

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.

I agree with this alternative, reduce confusion. Better not to have the vote 
than raise problems with  the result of the vote. As I said, at ALAC we had a 
very difficult situation at the election of LACRALO in Mexico in 2009 due the 
proxy vote among others. [Gomes, Chuck]  The alternative is not needed for the 
RySG.  I believe our charter already provides what is needed for this situation.

 

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.

Again better not have the vote [Gomes, Chuck]  Again, I believe that our 
charter includes the procedures needed to avoid this problem and we would 
prefer not to lose our vote.

 

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.  

 I can live with this text .[Gomes, Chuck]  Not needed for the RySG.

 

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados 

IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 - 1407,8

01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil

Tel + 5511 3266.6253

Mob + 55118181.1464

 

 

-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Julie 
Hedlund
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 26 de maio de 2011 10:13
Para: Philip Sheppard
Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - v7

 

 

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 
<mailto: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 
> <mailto: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

> 

>