RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I will restate what I said on the Council call.  We are not supposed to as a 
group focus on voting.  We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items.  If 
there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided 
that the processes were followed by the working group making the 
recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform 
of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board 
Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again.  We are not supposed 
to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus.

All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the 
last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a 
"consensus" on the issue.  The fact that there had to be a second measurement 
of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural.  
There was no abuse of process.  There was no abuse within the working group 
making the recommendation.  There is not evidence that there were improper 
conflicts, etc.  Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or 
willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not 
an issue.  



Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Sent from iPad.  Please excuse any typos.


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc:     Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff
Subject:        Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task


On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as 
> they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two 
> remedies were possible.
>  


I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is 
accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and 
accountability. 

Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote 
work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, 
legitimate.  It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they 
way they meant to when they voted another way.  If it was, those poor old 
jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have 
taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the 
US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it 
wasn't.   Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of 
the vote given.

avri