[council] Fwd: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
Stéphane Van Gelder
stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Tue Apr 5 12:20:21 UTC 2011
Forwarding this to the Chairs list for their info, as this was discussed in our planning meeting yesterday and the understanding was that you would not be at Thursday's meeting.
Good to hear that you will be, thanks for that.
Début du message réexpédié :
> De : Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com>
> Date : 5 avril 2011 14:06:05 HAEC
> À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Cc : "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, Ken Bour <ken.bour at verizon.net>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard at aim.be>, gnso-osc at icann.org, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, liz.gasster at icann.org
> Objet : Rép : [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> I plan to attend the conf call on Thursday so I can be the proxi for Andrei.
> 2011/4/5 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> On Chuck's last point, I am not sure that would be consistent with the way this works for non NCA councillors, as proxies can only be given within the same SG, they do not cover the entire house.
> I think we have to be careful not to create a situation where the NCAs enjoy benefits that elected councillors do not.
> Le 5 avr. 2011 à 01:03, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
>> The current GOP limit of one proxy per Council NCA follows the same limitation that is true for each SG Councilor. If, for example, the RySG had two Councilors absent for a meeting (quorum rules notwithstanding), the attending Councilor could still exercise only one proxy vote per motion. The other absent Councilor votes would be recorded as “absent.” [Gomes, Chuck] If it is important to maintain this, then we could just allow an NCA to give the proxy to any Councilor in the applicable house.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council