ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:57:28 -0400

The Whois Studies motion; it happens to be one that the registries and
registrars my split their votes.  As it turns out, I just learned that
it will not be a problem because Olga will be able to attend the
meeting.   Previously it looked like Andrei and Olga may not be able to

I suspect that liberalizing proxy voting might be difficult to do
because of General Council concerns about that, which we have
encountered repeatedly in the past.

I really think the concerns identified can be satisfied fairly simply.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:22 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> Chuck,
> interesting to learn of possible absences from the next council
> meeting.
> Which votes outside of the 4 e-mail votable areas will be affected?
> -----------------
> If the key issue is NOT proxy as a remedy for abstentions,
> BUT  proxy as a remedy for absences, then it seems to be a better
> solution would
> be to remove the 4 category limit for e-mail votes?
> OR, if Council prefers to vote and know an outcome at the meeting (a
> good idea
> methinks), perhaps we should consider simplification as follows:
> a) scrap e-mail votes
> b) scrap directed voting
> c) liberalise proxy voting as the only remedy.
> Thoughts ?
> Philip

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy