ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

  • To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:11:27 -0400

Thanks Olga.




From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:06 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Ken Bour; Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx; Robert 
Hoggarth; Julie Hedlund; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures


I plan to attend the conf call on Thursday so I can be the proxi for Andrei.

2011/4/5 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

On Chuck's last point, I am not sure that would be consistent with the way this 
works for non NCA councillors, as proxies can only be given within the same SG, 
they do not cover the entire house.


I think we have to be careful not to create a situation where the NCAs enjoy 
benefits that elected councillors do not.






Le 5 avr. 2011 à 01:03, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

The current GOP limit of one proxy per Council NCA follows the same limitation 
that is true for each SG Councilor.  If, for example, the RySG had two 
Councilors absent for a meeting (quorum rules notwithstanding), the attending 
Councilor could still exercise only one proxy vote per motion. The other absent 
Councilor votes would be recorded as "absent." [Gomes, Chuck]  If it is 
important to maintain this, then we could just allow an NCA to give the proxy 
to any Councilor in the applicable house.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy