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

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

Avri,

Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus.  But in the end, the spirit is 
to achieve consensus on policy items.  The fact that it took two votes to do so 
should not prejudice the results.  Again, if there was some evidence of wrong 
doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing.  But that did not happen.  

I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of 
misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc.



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 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Neuman, Jeff
Cc:     gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Robinson
Subject:        Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Hi,

Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but  that is not 
what the current regulations say.  Due to the agreement between the SG at the 
time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the 
g-council.  G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the 
Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed 
or not.    

To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of 
the situation.

avri


On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>