RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

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

No need to apologise for commenting Ray.  Your input is helpful.  But I do have 
a question for you: Why shouldn't proxies be used for unplanned or last minute 
absences?  There are times when those are beyond the control of the Councilor.  
There are other ways to deal with abuse of proxy voting and poor attendance.  
Is an unplanned absence any worse than a planned one?  

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ray Fassett
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:02 PM
> To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 
> I going to pipe in from the peanut gallery that a main tenet of the
> GCOT was
> to stress the overriding principle of attendance to meetings - and with
> regards to incorporating a proxy procedure was not to be for
> convenience
> such as unplanned, or last minute absences.  Personally, I do not think
> this
> is a difficult concept to communicate, including to new members to the
> Council, and in fact what the GCOT felt was important to do.
> 
> Sorry to interject.
> 
> Ray
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think we need to make it easier for council members to participate
> via
> proxy.
> 
> Accepting as we must that the scheduling of Council meetings might not
> be
> optimal there needs to be a way to deal with this.  It is up to the
> SG/C to
> deal with their member's attendance records.  We should not try to do
> that
> by creating byzantine rules.  We should remember that one reason ICANN
> and
> the GNSO take a year or more for a new council to understand is because
> we
> keep pilling confusion upon confusion in our rules.  We need to make
> our
> rules simple while making them fit for purpose.
> 
> I very much appreciate Philip's attempt to use simple language as
> opposed to
> language that required a parliamentarian from the staff to interpret
> its
> meaning.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 5 Apr 2011, at 09:54, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> >
> > I understand what you are saying Chuck, but I would suggest that the
> proxy
> rules are there to cater for exceptional circumstances and that we
> should be
> mindful that any alteration to those rules does not make it simpler for
> a
> Councillor simply to not attend the meetings. There is an expectation
> in the
> rules for Councillors to make best efforts to attend the meetings and
> therefore render these proxy rules moot.
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 5 avr. 2011 à 15:57, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> The Whois Studies motion; it happens to be one that the registries
> >> and registrars my split their votes.  As it turns out, I just
> learned
> >> that it will not be a problem because Olga will be able to attend
> the
> >> meeting.   Previously it looked like Andrei and Olga may not be able
> to
> >> attend.
> >>
> >> I suspect that liberalizing proxy voting might be difficult to do
> >> because of General Council concerns about that, which we have
> >> encountered repeatedly in the past.
> >>
> >> I really think the concerns identified can be satisfied fairly
> simply.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On
> >>> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:22 AM
> >>> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chuck,
> >>> interesting to learn of possible absences from the next council
> >>> meeting.
> >>> Which votes outside of the 4 e-mail votable areas will be affected?
> >>> -----------------
> >>>
> >>> If the key issue is NOT proxy as a remedy for abstentions, BUT
> >>> proxy as a remedy for absences, then it seems to be a better
> >>> solution would be to remove the 4 category limit for e-mail votes?
> >>>
> >>> OR, if Council prefers to vote and know an outcome at the meeting
> (a
> >>> good idea methinks), perhaps we should consider simplification as
> >>> follows:
> >>> a) scrap e-mail votes
> >>> b) scrap directed voting
> >>> c) liberalise proxy voting as the only remedy.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Philip
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>