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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
 
that's not what I wanted to say. But I might have misunderstood the
proposed text with regards to quorum.
Wouldn't the following meet clearly what's intended: 
"Quorum. An absent Councillor does not count toward quorum."
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
        Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 15:28
        An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; philip.sheppard@xxxxxx;
gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote -
approval by April 15 - v3
        
        

        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