Re: [council] Point for Discussion

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree with avri's comments here.
Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that
makes some members on the board think that the council should
become a management body of working group processes that will
elaborate policies.

Mawaki

--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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."
> >
> 
>