Re: [council] Point for Discussion

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know that this level of rigor is required or necessary. The only 
problem with the previous proxy arrangements was that they weren't 
permitted under ICANN's bylaws. I don't believe that there was any 
indication of abuse, or other problems associated with this method, 
other than the fact that it wasn't technically permissable.
I would like to see proxy's come back, but I don't think that we need to 
construct anything more elaborate governing their use than we previously 
used. i.e. a proxy can only be assigned by the person who holds the vote 
and that the GNSO Secretariat needs to be made aware of the assignment 
by the person passing the proxy prior to the start of the meeting.
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." 
>  

--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492