I agree this warrants further discussion, and would be good to know the options from Staff's perspective, and particularly what was used by DNSO. Thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bilal S. Beirm Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:35 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proxy voting I support Philip's proposal for draft options paper on conditions for proxy voting. Bilal _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:50 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Proxy voting Background Proxy voting is not allowed under the current by laws. A request to the Board amend the bylaws is possible. Council agreed to await the publication of the next GNSO review report Update There is not a word on proxy voting in the October 15 report from the BGC WG. Proposal Council request staff to write a short options paper on conditions for proxy voting (eg who can hold the proxy, how many proxies, notification of proxy, withdrawal of proxy etc). Staff can consider the old DNSO proxy voting guidelines as a starting point. (They worked well and were not abused.) Council discusses the options and then instructs staff to draft a resolution to request of Board the preferred option. Philip