<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RES: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3
- To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: RES: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v3
- From: "Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:41:22 -0300
Philip , all
I would like to raise one point related to proxy vote, due a problem we had
in the past in the LACRALO election, resulting in a 4 months of very
difficult situation when I was vice chair of ALAC.
The idea is to make the proxy known before hand for all members.
Since the absent voter will transfer to other its vote, and this may
change the result of any decision, the document ( email) authorizing the
proxy to vote shall be available AND circulating to all members before the
session starts.
My 2 cents
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 ? 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464
De: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de
Philip Sheppard
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de abril de 2011 06:35
Para: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: [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
![JPEG image](jpgXccuJG86MC.jpg)
![JPEG image](jpgaETJyHSLaz.jpg)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|