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

["Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Looks ok for me, but as I already sent in a previous email, due the problem
we had during LACRALO election and to avoid problems,  a note defining who
will be your proxy, if applicable, shall be sent to all council members.,
prior the meeting starts. 

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados 
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 ? 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464


-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de
Philip Sheppard
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de abril de 2011 04:51
Para: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: [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