RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v4

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

I don't have any problems with this.  In fact, I like the order of
precedence built into the following: ""

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote -
approval
> by April 15 - v4
> 
> Having heard no objection to the concern I raised in response to v.3,
I
> have redlined v.4 to reflect that the Proxy Giver may instruct the
> proxy holder in the absence of any instruction from the Proxy Giver's
> Appointing Organization.
> 
> Steve Metalitz
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:10 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by
> April 15 - v4
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> I think we all seem to be on the same page.
> 
> For good order I attach a v4 showing in pink the useful clarification
> language provided by Avri and supported by others.
> 
> Philip