RE: [council] Point for Discussion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the response Avri.  Please note my comments below.

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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:22 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: 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.

What I proposed would not limit this in any way.

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

Most issues do not involve voting so I am not sure this would happen and
as constituencies we would be able to manage participation internally
with our reps.

> 
> - 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.

We wouldn't need to make it overly complicated and if we cannot take
people's word, we have a bigger problem.

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

Agreed but that is the same as it is today.

> 
> 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."
> >
> 
>