DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [council] Proxies


I have to agree with Ken's note. I am not comfortable having non-NC members
holding proxies, and do not want to see the NC doing this -- it impacts the
entire NC. On the NC we have a representative role -- and we should delegate
it to our other NC representatives in cases where needed, and coordinate
with them before an NC meeting to be sure that the remaining representatives
understand your views (and/or vote).

The 'full' constituency voice can be heard through assigning the proxy to
one of the other constituency NC representatives. It's not a matter of a
physical body, but rather, having the constituency represented and heard
(e.g., in cases of a vote, that the vote of the absent constituency
representative is heard).

At this point, per Philip's earlier note, I am holding the proxy for Philip,
and may very likely also be holding it for Katoh if he can't make it to
Yokohama in time for the NC mtg. I have spoken and communicated with both,
gone through the agenda, etc., to be sure I understand points they believe
are important, and can fully fulfill my role as their proxy.

If the NC is going to start allowing non-NC members to hold proxies, then I
want to be sure to let them know so they also have the opportunity to
appoint a non-NC representative if they choose to. If this were the case, I
just point out we'd then have at a minimum 3 non-NC members at the upcoming
NC meeting...(who knows, perhaps there are others too).. It's my view that
this is not a direction the NC should be going.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> KathrynKL@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 11:23 PM
> To: kstubbs@dninet.net; cchicoine@dkwlaw.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be
> Cc: council@dnso.org; owner-council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Proxies
> I would feel better about going back to my Constituency with
> some formal
> citation to a bylaw or rule preventing formal proxies to
> well-informed peers.
>  I don't see any citation in Louis' note.  Ken:  do you know of any?
> Isn't it more appropriate for the constituencies themselves
> to decide on
> their representation in the NC meeting?  And isn't it
> important to have the
> full Constituency voice in the NC meeting? '
> Kathy
> <<
>  "For the reasons that the NC previously rejected such attempts, I do
>  not feel it is appropriate for proxies to be granted to non-members
>  of the NC.  As Ken has noted, it is the constituencies, through their
>  processes, that elect members to the NC (for fixed terms), and there
>  is nothing permitting the member herself or himself to elect someone
>  else.  In addition, the NC is intended to be a collaborative group,
>  which is promoted by having a relatively stable membership."
>  on that basis i must assume that proxies can only be given
> to other members
>  of the names council and
>  no member can appoint a non names-council member to "take
> their place on the
>  council "  or "cast their vote"
>   >>

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