<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3
- To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:20:48 +0200
I also agree.
Just 2 things have to be made precise:
1. since the Proxy Holder could be any councillor: from which Appointing
Organisation the V(v)oting D(d)irection is to be given if applicable?
2. in case of absence of the Proxy Giver the Holder counts towards
quorum
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. April 2011 19:09
An: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote -
approval by April 15 - v3
This looks pretty good to me. I am also okay with Avri's
suggested change. And I look for a response from Ken and/or Rob.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:35 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote -
approval by April 15 - v3
Thanks for all the useful debate.
In light of this I propose a revision of the earlier
simplification.
This:
- adds even more to simplification (Avri, Chuck et al)
- makes it clear that attendance is preferred (Ray)
- removes no existing rights (Stephane)
- allows for equivalent flexibility for any proxy giving
Councilor (Chuck)
- removes the objection to the legal basis for the proxy giver
providing voting direction (Ken).
- removes the odd absence/abstention confusion (Philip, Chuck,
Avri).
Thoughts on the attached v3 ?
Ken, Rob any legal holes?
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|