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

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

The changes look fine to me but I wonder whether we should address
Vanda's suggestion, which seems okay to me.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:51 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [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