RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3

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

Wolf,

 

I disagree with 2 if I understand you correctly.  I do not think that
the proxy holder should count twice for a quorum.

 

Chuck

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 6:21 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval
by April 15 - v3

 

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