Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I understand what you are saying Chuck, but I would suggest that the proxy 
rules are there to cater for exceptional circumstances and that we should be 
mindful that any alteration to those rules does not make it simpler for a 
Councillor simply to not attend the meetings. There is an expectation in the 
rules for Councillors to make best efforts to attend the meetings and therefore 
render these proxy rules moot.

Stéphane



Le 5 avr. 2011 à 15:57, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> 
> 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
> attend.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----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
>> 
> 
>