<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Fwd: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
- To: <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
- From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:17:46 +0000
- Cc: <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
- Importance: Normal
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi all: After this possibility of lack of regulation or legal empty, or
darkness - I think is needed to think how will be solved (or clarify) if the
situation appear in the future again .
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Fwd: [gnso-osc] RE: GNSO Council Proxy Procedures
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:20:21 +0200
CC: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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's meeting.
Good to hear that you will be, thanks for that.
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :De : Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
Date : 5 avril 2011 14:06:05 HAEC
À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc : "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx, Robert Hoggarth
<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>,
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 <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
On Chuck'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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|