Makes sense to me too.
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:01 PM
To: 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-osc-ops'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] ICANN Staff Document on Abstentions
Good point, Avri. I support your thesis on 'voluntary' if there has been
any engagement.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 2009-11-11 13:30
To: gnso-osc-ops
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ICANN Staff Document on Abstentions
Hi,
Just to add a thought.
While I am rather resistant to the idea of decreasing the denominator
for an abstention, I can see the possibility of extreme cases that
might warrant it. I like the stringent rules defined by Ken including
the requirement for approval by the opposite house in those case where
the SG group is not willing to require the vote. I would, however,
like to suggest an additional caveat - if the person asking to make
an abstention has ever uttered a single word, beyond the expression of
their conflict of interest, during the discussions on that topic in
either the council or any of its WGs then that abstention must be
deemed voluntary.
a.