RE: [council] Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

NCA's are not a SG, they are all independent. The assignment to a house
should not mean they are aligned somehow. So I agree with Stephane,
except that since they are independent how do we comfirm that the NCA
that is made proxy is voting as directed by the absent NCA? Should that
be confirmed before hand, or after. The latter is likely more practical,
but just want to be sure we understand how this works for NCAs.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, April 05, 2011 7:49 am
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Stephane,
> I said I would confirm on Tuesday.
> Best
> Olga
> 
> 2011/4/5 Stéphane Van Gelder 
> Thanks Olga,
> 
> Forwarding this to the Chairs list for their info, as this was discussed in 
> our planning meeting yesterday and the understanding was that you would not 
> be at Thursday&#39;s meeting.
> 
> 
> Good to hear that you will be, thanks for that.
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Début du message réexpédié :
> De : Olga Cavalli 
> 
> Date : 5 avril 2011 14:06:05 HAEC
> 
> À : Stéphane Van Gelder 
> 
> Cc : "Gomes, Chuck" , Ken Bour , Philip Sheppard , gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx, Robert 
> Hoggarth , Julie Hedlund , liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Objet : Rép : [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I plan to attend the conf call on Thursday so I can be the proxi for Andrei.
> Regards
> Olga
> 
> 2011/4/5 Stéphane Van Gelder 
> 
> On Chuck&#39;s last point, I am not sure that would be consistent with the 
> way this works for non NCA councillors, as proxies can only be given within 
> the same SG, they do not cover the entire house.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have to be careful not to create a situation where the NCAs enjoy 
> benefits that elected councillors do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 5 avr. 2011 à 01:03, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> The current GOP limit of one proxy per Council NCA follows the same 
> limitation that is true for each SG Councilor.  If, for example, the RySG had 
> two Councilors absent for a meeting (quorum rules notwithstanding), the 
> attending Councilor could still exercise only one proxy vote per motion. The 
> other absent Councilor votes would be recorded as �absent.� [Gomes, 
> Chuck]  If it is important to maintain this, then we could just allow an NCA 
> to give the proxy to any Councilor in the applicable house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>