ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council procedures - proxy vote - approval by April 15 - v5
  • From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:06:37 -0700

Dear Philip,

Rob, Ken, and I did note that you asked if there were any legal holes in
your v3 of the procedures.  However, since it appeared that the discussion
would result in subsequent changes we held off on engaging Legal staff.
However, at this point -- as we are now on v5 and the 15th is fast
approaching -- we thought it would be helpful to forward v5 to the Legal
staff, which I have done today.

Best regards,


On 4/11/11 3:51 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy