<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Quorum
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 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
-
I fully agree with that view. That option may block completely any work or
decision of the DNSO.
I am opposed to it
-
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER
Reseau National de Telecommunications
pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
| ENSAM
Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|