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