<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures
Let's plan for this in the Council meeting on 28 October.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:32 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Wendy Seltzer
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Proxy Voting Procedures
>
> 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/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|