<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Point for Discussion
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."
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|