ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Point for Discussion

On 13 jul 2007, at 11.51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I made no assumptions at all about how other constituencies handle this.
My recommendation did not suggest that any constituency should change
their mode of operation.  But in cases where a constituency has
established a position using what ever procedures they use, it seems
very clear to me that that constituency should not lose a vote if one of
their reps cannot attend.

I think that in fairness, the type of internal organizational behavior a constituency implements should not have an effect on the voting rights of councilors. I.e., while I favor the proxy approach that was in effect when I joined the council, I have concerns about an approach that would only give such 'proxy' rights to a constituency that worked in one particular way.

Additionally, speaking as a nomcom appointee to council, I would hope we, i.e., Nomcom appointees, would have the same proxy capability as any other council member.

I also favor an approach that includes a prohibition against using a proxy mechanism to avoid a required abstention based on a conflict of interest. In this case, it might be necessary for proxies to apply to specific pending votes and for the council member declaring a proxy to specifically declare the absence of any conflict that would force an abstention.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>