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

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

I like Avri's language.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:33 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote -
> approval by April 15 - v3
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That is a good simple way to say it.  I like it.
> 
> Yet,
> 
> To make it more explicit, even if a little less simple we might want
to
> consider something like:
> 
> An absent council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy
> has been established.  A temporary replacement, if present, would
count
> toward quorum.
> 
> (note i avoided the controversy over how to spell councilor)
> 
> a.
> 
> On 7 Apr 2011, at 09:21, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
>