[council] Point for Discussion

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a change for  
several reasons.  Among those reasons:

- There has to be a difference between appointing 3 representatives  
and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the  
constituency.  Although most of the constituencies seem to hold their  
representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything in the by  
laws mandating this.  I think it is important to maintain the  
possibility that every representative participates as an trusted  
individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves contrary to  
the interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their seat.   
Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not always require  
constituency discipline.

- It would lessen the pressure to actually have people attend the  
meetings and participate in the discussion.

- The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, opaque, we  
would therefore have to take someone's word for it.  And while the  
constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would already be  
complete.

- It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees who might  
miss a meeting.

I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting provisions as  
part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make some of  
its own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at that  
point.

a.



On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy voting on the  
> Council and support it, but I would like to propose the following  
> for consideration by the Council.
>
> It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any of their  
> votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has taken a  
> position on an issue and one of their Council representatives  
> cannot participate in a meeting.  In such a case, it seems  
> reasonable to allow any one constituency representative to case all  
> the votes for the constituency provided an officer of the  
> constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the wishes of  
> the full consituency as determined through the constituencies  
> established processes.  As I envision this, it would only apply in  
> cases where a vote was announced in advance, a constituency  
> considered the choices and the constituency as a whole provided  
> direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise, we would  
> simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
>
> I am not suggesting this because of any recent or anticiapted issue  
> but rather think that it is a procedure we should define before we  
> encounter such a situation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows meeting  
> but simply one for list discussion.  Depending on the discussion  
> that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity  
> to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is  
> privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under  
> applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure  
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,  
> please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original  
> transmission."
>