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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is good!
(And my PC doesn't flag any supposed misprint of "ll")


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
Avri Doria
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 16:33
An: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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
>