<<<
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
>>>
 
 |