RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures: Clarification
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:24:35 -0400
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.
> -----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
> Personally, I find the idea of declaring an abstention when in fact
> 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.