AW: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v5

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed!
I prefer rules simply to follow.

Note: the GCOT in establishing supposed complex rules never assumed a present 
Councillor might be stupid. 


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
Philip Sheppard
Gesendet: Montag, 11. April 2011 09:51
An: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 
- v5


Further to Steve's comment, Chuck's support, and some concern expressed by
Stephan as to the confusing nature of this fine distinction between proxy for
abstention and proxy for absence, I propose the revision attached.

Pink highlight shows changes from v3 and v4.

There are two key changes:
a) we allow the Proxy giver to instruct (absent any rationale from Staff why
this is a bad idea)
b) we make the giving of a proxy simple. 

In doing b) there is a tad of illogic in that a proxy giver abstaining may in
theory instruct a proxy holder to abstain. 
This defeats the purpose and the Proxy Giver would be stupid to so instruct.
On balance a simple rule designed for Councillors who are assumed not be stupid
seems preferable to a complex rule that assumes Councillors are stupid.

Comments ?

Philip