Mary,
I think you are missing something. In my opinion, if a
Councilor cannot make a meeting, the procedures apply, as long as there is
sufficient lead time to follow the procedures. What makes you think that “instances where a
Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting” are not covered?
Note the following from Section 4.5:
·
“When circumstances
regarding a potential voting abstention occur that would otherwise prevent a
Councilor from discharging his/her responsibilities (see Paragraph 4.5.2), the
Councilor’s appointing organization is provided a set of remedies (see
Paragraph 4.5.3) designed to enable its vote to be exercised.”
·
“Circumstances may occur
when a Council member elects to refrain from participating and voting for
reasons that may include, but are not limited to . . .”
(Section 4.5.2.a) Please note the phrase “not limited to”. I believe that “instances where a
Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting” are covered here.
BTW, I definitely do not view you as “being a pest”. It is
essential that we all learn the nuances of the new procedures so that we can
use them appropriately and as easily as possible.
Chuck
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:07 AM
Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@icann.org; ken.bour@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures
Hi,
Besides the
procedural issue, my concern was, and is, the sense (from reviewing the new
Council operating procedures) that if a Councilor is going to be absent from a
vote, the only way he/she can actually get to vote - assuming
the issue is not one that relates specifically to a PDP Bylaw, Council
procedure or vacancy (which triggers the Absentee Voting procedures in
4.4) - is on issues that dictate an abstention.
The problem is that
4.5 (on Abstentions) presuppose only 2 situations where an abstention is
justified: (1) volitional (where a Councillor "elects to refrain from
participating and voting", see 4.5.2(a); and (2) obligational (i.e.
professional, personal or political conflicts), see 4.5.2(b). These then trigger
the procedural remedies we've discussed (including a proxy vote).
I
completely agree that Councilors are fully expected and required
(including in 4.5.1) to participate actively and discharge their duties
responsibly, such that instances of absent and/or proxy voting are minimized
and not encouraged. However, it seems to me that there will be instances where
a Councilor simply cannot be at a meeting, but fully wishes to vote on a motion
that is not one that triggers either 4.4 or 4.5. In other words, he/she does
not need to "elect to refrain" from voting, and is not otherwise
obligated to abstain.
As currently worded,
neither 4.4 nor 4.5 (including the language on proxies) would seem to cover
this type of situation, which arguably could be handled via a relatively
straightforward proxy process.
Am I missing
something, reading the procedures too narrowly, or ... ? (maybe being a pest?
:)
Thanks and cheers
Mary
In such a case, the
new Operating Procedures do not seem to allow for a relatively simple - but
documented and accountable - mechanism by which such a case could be handled
through a proxy.
Mary W
S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP
Programs
>>>
Thanks Chuck. I
had read that very article as I prepared for today's meeting yesterday, as I
was looking at the various links pertaining to absences and voting that Glen
sent to the Council list before this meeting. I did not have
the same understanding as you re the requirement to request for a proxy in
advance of the meeting (where does it say that in sub-section i. below?). I
would argue that in Tim's case, the appointing organization, i.e. the RrSG,
had established a position. This was not 'stated' on the public Council list,
but article i. does not say this should be done in this way. I agree there is
ambiguity here and my intent is not to second-guess the decision you made in
today's meeting. But as this processes are still a bit new to us all, I just
want to make sure we iron out some of the wrinkles so that if we have this
type of situation again, we know how to handle it. Thanks, Stéphane Le 8 sept. 2010 à
19:25, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Here is my response to
Stéphane’s question regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP)
requirements regarding proxy voting. Here is the applicable
excerpt from the GOP, Section 4.5.3.b, Remedies: “Proxy Voting
The second method to be considered in avoiding
the consequences of an abstention is the use of proxy voting, where the vote
of an abstaining Councilor is transferred to another GNSO Councilor.
i. For abstentions declared by Councilors not
appointed by the Nominating Committee and where voting direction is not a
viable remedy, the appointing organization may transfer the vote of the
abstaining Councilor to: (1) the House Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA),
(2) another of its Constituency Councilors (where applicable), or (3) another
Councilor within the Stakeholder Group. The appointing organization must be
able to establish an affirmative or negative voting position, subject to
provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on the applicable measure/motion
for which one of its Councilors has declared an intention to abstain. The
Councilor to whom the vote is transferred shall exercise a vote in line with
the appointing organization’s stated position. ii. If an abstention is declared by a House NCA,
once formal notification has occurred pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph
4.5.4-a, a proxy is automatically transferred to the GNSO Council’s
unaffiliated NCA (hereinafter Council NCA) and any vote cast will be counted
within the House to which the abstaining NCA is assigned. The Council NCA may
exercise only one proxy at a time; therefore, the first abstention remedy
properly transferred to the Council NCA, including all measures/motions
specified, takes precedence. It should be noted that, because NCAs do not
have an appointing organization, as defined in these procedures (see Section
1.3.1), to provide specific voting direction, the Council NCA may exercise
his/her best judgment, including abstaining, on the matter at issue. If the
Council NCA abstains or does not cast a vote for any other reason, no further
remedies are available and the automatic proxy will be nullified. The
original House NCA will be recorded in the minutes as having abstained from
the vote.” If I interpret the above correctly, for proxies
to have been allowed in today’s meeting the following would have need to have
happened in advance: The appointing
organization of the Councilor who has to
abstain (because of planned absence or other reasons) “must be able to establish an affirmative or negative
voting position” and that would have needed to have sent to Secretary.
I believe Staff has prepared a template to facilitate
this. That did not happen in any of the cases
where proxies were requested today. I cc’d Rob and Ken so that they can correct me
if my interpretation is in error. Chuck |
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law
Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as
the University of New Hampshire School of
Law. Please
note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention:
firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu