RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I going to pipe in from the peanut gallery that a main tenet of the GCOT was
to stress the overriding principle of attendance to meetings - and with
regards to incorporating a proxy procedure was not to be for convenience
such as unplanned, or last minute absences.  Personally, I do not think this
is a difficult concept to communicate, including to new members to the
Council, and in fact what the GCOT felt was important to do.

Sorry to interject.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:20 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures


Hi,

I think we need to make it easier for council members to participate via
proxy.

Accepting as we must that the scheduling of Council meetings might not be
optimal there needs to be a way to deal with this.  It is up to the SG/C to
deal with their member's attendance records.  We should not try to do that
by creating byzantine rules.  We should remember that one reason ICANN and
the GNSO take a year or more for a new council to understand is because we
keep pilling confusion upon confusion in our rules.  We need to make our
rules simple while making them fit for purpose.

I very much appreciate Philip's attempt to use simple language as opposed to
language that required a parliamentarian from the staff to interpret its
meaning.  

a.


On 5 Apr 2011, at 09:54, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 
> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>