RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification

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

Like Philip, I also find it odd to declare an abstention when in fact it
is an absence.  I think I understand how this came about: An abstention
applies when there is a possible personal/professional conflict; I
assume then that the concept of abstention was extended for absences.  I
personally think it would be better to refer to absences as absences.  I
think that would be a simple fix.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:46 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Ken,
> I hoped had had caught this is my point 2 but your detail is most
> helpful.
> 
> Personally, I find the idea of declaring an abstention when in fact
its
> an
> absence to be odd.
> At best it is confusing, at worst deceptive (especially if a voting
> direction is
> then provided by the absent Councilor) !
> 
> I'd be interested to learn why this construction was invented.
> 
> Philip