RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Avri on all counts with one qualification: Simplicity should not 
be our rationale for avoiding problems that need to be fixed; we simply need to 
find ways to fix them simply.

Chuck

> -----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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>