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

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

I don't have any problem with this.  In fact I like the order of
precedence built into the following: "If the Proxy Giver is absent: the
Proxy Holder must vote "Yes" or "No" or "Abstain" according to either a)
an instruction from the Proxy Giver's appointing organization (if
applicable) or if none, from the Proxy Giver; or, if neither, b) the
Proxy Holder's own conscience."

Chuck

> -----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