Re: [council] Quorum

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@revenue.com>]

my only concern here would be that a constituancy could hypothetically
boycott the dnso and render the names council helpless to act so i would not
be comfortable with that option

bes wishes

ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl>
To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; "names council"
<council@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:26 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Quorum


> Further thought on option B
>
> In option B we could add that it will be mandatory that at least one
> representative of each constituency should be physically represented, in
> that form diversity is maintained.
>
> Regards
>
> Guillermo
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 05 de Octubre de 2000 11:13 a.m.
> Para: names council
> Asunto: Re: [council] Quorum
>
>
> Paul's revised proposal on proxy voting will be discussed at the Oct 19
> meeting.
>
> The core question over proxies counting for quorum is as follows:
> 1. Present rules say quorum is one half = 10 members physically present.
>
> 2. Revised option B of the new proposal is one third = 7 members
physically
> present plus 3 proxies between them.
>
>  Philip
>
>