ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] GNSO Council motions 6/7 February 2006

  • To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council motions 6/7 February 2006
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:16:23 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB540262E6C9@balius.mit>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcYrcNfZPXBgjEMoSLm7NF/wWU2KxgAAfgKQAB1jbEA=

I believe that Jun then changed his vote and voted "no". However, perhaps
the discussion wasn't quite clear regarding the use of proxy, WITH
direction, which seemed to be what June initially did, in passing a proxy to

I know that some of the new Councilors may find the proxy use confusing.
Glen, could you perhaps write out a short description of how proxies are
used, based on our past history, and Bruce might review it?

I believe there are five instances
1) vote either yes or no
2) pass a proxy with direction
3) pass a proxy without direction, due to having a conflict
4) abstaining, which counts as "no"
5) being absent and not passing a proxy

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:15 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council motions 6/7 February 2006

Hello Glen,

> 6 votes against, Cary Karp (2), Ken Stubbs (2), June Seo 
> (2)(gTLD registries constituency)

June may wish to clarify this, but I believe June passed a proxy to Ken
Stubbs as he wanted to avoid any perceived case of a conflict of
interest with respect to his vote.


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