RE: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I think such a meeting would be very helpful.  I, for one, did not appreciate 
how onerous and burdensome these processes would be until I tried to use them.  
(It was easier to move my schedule around to be on the Council call than to use 
them.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:17 AM
To: Wendy Seltzer
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures


The procedures can be changed but I think we should first understand why the 
GCOT made the recommendations as they were approved by the Council.

Feel free to request more information in this regard.  I am sure we could 
arrange a meeting with the GCOT chair, the OSC chair and Ken Bour who assisted 
them.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:02 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures
>
> On 09/28/2010 08:15 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > In my assessment, that doesn't seem to work because of the following
> requirements:
> >
> > - "A Councilor who believes that he/she should abstain from
> participation/voting on a measure before the Council is required to
> provide, at the earliest opportunity, a brief written notification
> documenting the circumstances to the appointing organization with a
> copy forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat."
> >
> > - "To effectuate a remedy described in 4.5.3, the appointing
> organization or, when applicable, the House or Council NCA must
> provide a written statement to the GNSO Secretariat, as early as
> possible prior to any discussion/voting on the matter at issue . . ."
> Note the list of items that must be in the appointing organizations
> written communication with particular attention to: "Reason(s) for or
> condition(s) leading to the remedy"; "Specific
> subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the
> remedy is being exercised"; "the communication must include an
> affirmation that the appointing organization has established a voting
> position, subject to provisions contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on
> the matter at issue".
> >
>
> Why should that not be remediable by a standing order?  (or why
> shouldn't we fix the OP to make it so, if an SG so chooses?)
>
> --Wendy
>
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:04 AM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck
> >> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Ken Bour; Mary Wong; Council GNSO;
> >> robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures
> >>
> >> Could an SG establish a blanket rule that its Councilors, in the
> event
> >> of necessary abstentions, may delegate proxies up to the time of
> >> the vote, without further involvement required of the SG?
> >>
> >> --Wendy
> >>
> >> On 09/28/2010 07:37 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>> Stéphane,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please see the following from the Procedures:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "4.5.3 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."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Did the RrSG "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"?  If so, I was not aware of that.  The
> >> procedures go on to describe the procedure for doing that as you
> >> can see below in Section 4.5.4, Procedures, taking note of
> >> particular sections that I highlighted:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "4.5.4 Procedures
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This paragraph outlines the notification and communication steps
> >> required when an abstention condition is identified as well as the
> >> procedures that must be followed in remedying the abstention.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For the purposes of these procedures, the term "written" or "in
> >> writing" shall mean via postal mail or electronic mail (e-mail).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In order for an abstention remedy to be implemented, all required
> >> procedures must be completed prior to the start of the GNSO Council
> >> meeting in which the vote will be taken; otherwise, the abstention
> will
> >> not be remedied and the provisions of paragraph 4.5.4-c will apply.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> a. Notification by Councilor
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A Councilor who believes that he/she should abstain from
> >> participation/voting on a measure before the Council is required to
> >> provide, at the earliest opportunity, a brief written notification
> >> documenting the circumstances to the appointing organization with a
> >> copy forwarded to the GNSO Secretariat. For a House NCA, the
> >> notification should be sent to the GNSO Secretariat with a copy to
> the
> >> Council NCA who is required to acknowledge receipt to both parties
> that
> >> an automatic proxy is confirmed. If the situation is perceived to
> >> be confidential in nature and cannot be disclosed in the
> >> notification,
> a
> >> statement to that effect should be included by the Councilor.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> b. Communication by Appointing Organization or NCA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To effectuate a remedy described in 4.5.3, the appointing
> >> organization or, when applicable, the House or Council NCA must
> provide
> >> a written statement to the GNSO Secretariat, as early as possible
> prior
> >> to any discussion/voting on the matter at issue, containing the
> >> following information:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ·         Name of the abstaining Councilor.
> >>>
> >>> * Remedy selected (from Paragraph 4.5.3).
> >>>
> >>> * Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy.
> >>>
> >>> * Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the
> >>> Council
> >> for which the remedy is being exercised.
> >>>
> >>> * Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate. No remedy
> may
> >> initially or subsequently extend beyond three (3) months at a time.
> If
> >> the period needs to be extended, a written notice can be provided
> >> to the GNSO Secretariat indicating the reason for extension (e.g.
> Council
> >> vote postponed) and a new expiration date. While there is no limit
> to
> >> the number of extensions; "standing" remedies are not allowed under
> any
> >> circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> * For the specific remedies of Voting Direction and Proxy Voting,
> the
> >> communication must include an affirmation that the appointing
> >> organization has established a voting position, subject to
> provisions
> >> contained in its Charter or Bylaws, on the matter at issue. For
> Voting
> >> Direction, a statement from the appointing organization shall
> indicate
> >> that the affected Councilor has been instructed how to vote on the
> >> matter. Exclusion: these statements are not applicable or required
> in a
> >> remedy applied for a House NCA.
> >>>
> >>> * For Proxy Voting, identification of the GNSO Councilor who will
> >> register the vote for the abstaining Councilor.
> >>>
> >>> * For a Temporary Alternate, identification of the individual who
> >> will serve as a substitute for the abstaining Councilor. If not
> already
> >> published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of
> >> Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and
> >> delivered
> to
> >> the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting
> scheduled
> >> to take place."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I made my decision based on my understanding of the above.  If my
> >> understanding is incorrect, please help me see where I went wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Fortunately, in this case, I don't believe that the denial of the
> >> proxy requests in the meeting had any material effect on the vote
> >> results.  But I do hope that this provides us a good test that will
> >> lead to better understanding of the procedures by all of us, myself
> >> included, so that we can applying them properly and so that SGs and
> >> constituencies can minimize any loss of votes because of absences.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chuck
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:37 AM
> >>> To: Gomes, Chuck
> >>> Cc: Ken Bour; Mary Wong; Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
> >> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is only part of the texts that we should base our proxy
> >>> voting
> >> procedures on, as it only deals with absences. I had seen this text
> and
> >> taking it into account when the issue of proxy voting came up
> >> during our last meeting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I still see nothing here that should have prevented Tim from being
> >> able to request to have me as his proxy in the way that he did.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Stéphane
> >>>
> >>> Le 28 sept. 2010 à 02:00, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot ken.
> >>>
> >>> If anyone has questions about this, please ask.
> >>>
> >>> Chuck
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 2:05 PM
> >>> To: 'Mary Wong'; Gomes, Chuck
> >>> Cc: 'Council GNSO'; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Proxy Voting Procedures
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chuck, Mary, et al.:
> >>>
> >>> I am not entirely sure that this will help resolve the confusion,
> but
> >> the absences and vacancies procedures are contained in Section 3.8-
> >> Incidental Absences of the GOP, not Section 4.5.   I copied out the
> >> following paragraph (3.8.1-a) that pertains to your discussion...
> >>>
> >>> a.       Planned Absence:  It is understood that, from time to
> time,
> >> it may be necessary for a GNSO Council member to miss a scheduled
> >> meeting due to a conflicting personal or professional obligation or
> >> other planned event that cannot be reasonably altered.
> >>>
> >>>                       i.            When a Councilor anticipates
> >> being absent or late for a Council meeting, the Councilor is
> expected
> >> to notify (e.g. telephone, e-mail) the GNSO Secretariat as soon as
> >> practicable before the meeting begins.
> >>>
> >>>                     ii.            A Councilor is expected to vote
> on
> >> such motions as may come before the GNSO Council using the
> alternative
> >> means provided in Section 4.4-Absentee Voting, if applicable.  If
> >> circumstances will not permit voting using the alternative means
> >> available, the Councilor may declare an intention to abstain on
> those
> >> motions that are scheduled to be voted upon during the GNSO Council
> >> meeting at which the Councilor expects to be absent.  In such an
> >> instance, the procedures in Section 4.5-Abstentions will apply.
> >>>
> >>> In essence, in the case of a planned absence, the Councilor is
> >> permitted to declare an intention to abstain and that action affords
> >> the SG/C of the remedies in Section 4.5 (e.g. proxy).   Unplanned
> >> absences, covered in 3.8.1(b), are not remediable due to lack of
> >> advanced notice.
> >>>
> >>> To execute any voting remedy does not require that a Councilor
> >> determine or indicate whether an abstention is "volitional" or
> >> "obligational."  Those categories were drafted to explain the types
> of
> >> abstentions that can occur -- illustrated with a few examples that
> were
> >> not intended to be exhaustive.   A planned absence could possibly be
> >> interpreted as volitional or obligational depending upon the
> >> circumstances; but, again, it is not necessary to disclose which
> >> classification applies in any abstention situation.   Once a
> Councilor
> >> knows, in advance of a Council meeting, that he/she will be absent,
> >> that is sufficient declaration to request a voting remedy from the
> >> SG/C.
> >>>
> >>> If you have any other questions, I would be pleased to answer them.
> >>>
> >>> Ken Bour
> >>>
> >>> From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 11:34 AM
> >>> Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the prompt and helpful answer, Chuck. I actually agree
> and
> >> understand that the inclusive language in 4.5.2(a), regarding
> examples
> >> of volitional absence, was intended to also cover the sort of
> >> situations I'd raised (particularly when read with the "either/or"
> >> voting universe contemplated by 3.8.1.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the actual language
> >>> of
> >> 4.5.2(a) in two respects creates potential uncertainty going
> >> forward (particularly some time down the road when many of those
> >> involved in drafting and initially implementing these new
> >> procedures are no
> longer
> >> on Council). These two respects are (1) the use of the words
> >> "elects
> to
> >> refrain from ... voting" in 4.5.2(a) (which implies a positive
> choice
> >> rather than one required by a necessary absence); and (2) the
> examples
> >> used to illustrate possible basis for such a choice. Although
> inclusive
> >> in nature, all three examples point toward instances which relate
> >> to
> a
> >> Councillor's substantive inability to discharge his/her duties
> >> responsibly. Either or both of these issues could result - down the
> >> road - in possibly narrower interpretations of the abstention
> >> voting procedures than we now are contemplating.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Helpful though our email discussions are, unfortunately they are
> not
> >> official minutes of a Council meeting or formal resolutions of a
> >> Council discussion. It occurs to me that issues of interpretation
> such
> >> as the one I raised could appropriately be referred, as a matter of
> >> implementation oversight, to our Standing Committee for a formal
> >> confirmation that this particular interpretation is correct for the
> >> record.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure how we are supposed to do this, but I'd be happy to
> >> draft and submit a brief motion for Council consideration at the
> next
> >> meeting, if that's the way to do it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and cheers
> >>>
> >>> Mary
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mary W S Wong
> >>>
> >>> Professor of Law
> >>>
> >>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> >>>
> >>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street
> >>> Concord, NH 03301 USA
> >>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> >>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> >>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
> >> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> From:
> >>>
> >>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> To:
> >>>
> >>> "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> CC:
> >>>
> >>> "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>,
> >> <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Date:
> >>>
> >>> 9/24/2010 6:08 PM
> >>>
> >>> Subject:
> >>>
> >>> RE: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures
> >>>
> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> >>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:07 AM
> >>> Cc: Council GNSO; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street
> >>> Concord, NH 03301 USA
> >>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> >>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> >>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
> >> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> From:
> >>>
> >>> Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> To:
> >>>
> >>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> CC:
> >>>
> >>> "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>,
> >> <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Date:
> >>>
> >>> 9/8/2010 4:39 PM
> >>>
> >>> Subject:
> >>>
> >>> Re: [council] Proxy Voting Procedures
> >>>
> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> >> For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of
> Law,
> >> please visit law.unh.edu <http://law.unh.edu>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> >> For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of
> Law,
> >> please visit law.unh.edu <http://law.unh.edu>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613 Fellow,
> >> Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman
> >> Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> >> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> >> https://www.torproject.org/
> >> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton
> Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for
> Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/