<<<
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.
Chuck
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
Hi,
I plan to attend the conf call on Thursday so I can be the proxi for Andrei.
Regards
Olga
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.
Stéphane
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
>>>
|