RE: [council] Point for Discussion

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I agree.  I find the prohibition on proxies particularly baffling given
that we are all volunteers and have to make it the meetings on our own
time and at our own expense.
 
Kristina
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ute Decker
        Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:00 AM
        To: GNSO Council
        Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
        
        

        I certainly support Philip's point that we need to get past this
point.  Getting additional advice from John seems the logical next step
forward. 

         

        Ute

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: 12 July 2007 12:51
        To: Philip Sheppard; GNSO Council
        Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion

         

        Good point Philip.  I wonder if it would be helpful to ask John
for additional advice regarding what we are considering and how best to
pursue it, assuming of course there is interest by other constituencies
besides the RyC.

         

        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." 

         

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
                Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:41 AM
                To: 'GNSO Council'
                Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion

                Chuck raises a good point.

                The current situation is a disenfranchisement and needs
correcting.

                However, the proposal does not get us over the by-laws
situation which has brought us to the current state of misery.

                 

                The by-laws state - as they have done more or less since
ICANN began:

                "Members of the GNSO Council may participate in a
meeting of the GNSO Council through use of ..... ; provided that (a) all
members participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one
another, ...... (c) ICANN adopts and implements means of verifying that
(x) a person participating in such a meeting is a member of the GNSO
Council or other person entitled to participate in the meeting and (y)
all actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are taken or cast only by
the members of the GNSO Council and not persons who are not members". 

                 

                It is this provision that Louis Touton interpreted to
ALLOW proxy votes.

                It is this provision that John Jeffreys interpreted to
DENY proxy  votes.

                 

                Until we change this by-law , we are sunk and
disenfranchised.

                 

                Philip