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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Chuck.  This is very helpful.

Julie

----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:17 PM
To: Julie Hedlund; Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures -  proxy vote -  v7

Thanks Julie.  Please note my responses from the RySG perspective below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:13 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] For the RySG, voting direction comes from the SG, not
from the Councilor.

> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] The RySG charter covers cases where direction is given
and where it is not and that would not change if a proxy was given
during a meeting.  The charter requires voting direction be given
whether a Councilor is absent or not or whether a Councilor needs to
personally abstain or not.

> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] In most cases, the required time to obtain direction
would be impractical and would make the proxy impossible.  It is more
important to make sure that the RySG does not lose its vote than to tie
the hands of the Councilor who will not be able to vote.  Besides, as
already noted, I believe the RySG charter adequately deals with cases
where direction is needed so a time limitation is not needed.

> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
>