Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
>