[gnso-osc] RE: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ray.  In reality I guess an abstention is a nonvote.  The problem with 
using the term nonvote though is that it implies that someone didn't 
participate in the vote. Abstaining is not the same as not voting in my 
opinion.  I agree that key is that the abstentioins are counted toward the % 
calculation.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:09 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts
        
        

        I did look at this last night, Chuck, and thought about the very 
question you are asking me.  I did not think so last night and I do not think 
so this morning.  Obviously, recording abstentions as non votes is a change.  
But, the denominator remains fixed, consistent to what the GCOT WT members find 
most important about this, being about "total possible" votes (so as to avoid 
the ability to manipulate percentages under various scenarios).  Personally, I 
am not sure what the purpose is of an abstention counting as a non vote if the 
denominator is going to remain fixed (I agree the denominator must remain fixed 
as defined).  It's like splitting hairs or something.  So, ok an abstention is 
recorded as a non vote but at the end of the day it is not a vote for so with 
the denominator remaining fixed, it is a "vote" not a non vote (i.e. is a vote 
against in the practical sense).  If I have just reasoned this out correctly, 
then I do not feel the GCOT WT will have an issue with making the proposed edit 
as stated below (just personally not sure what is trying to be accomplished, 
assuming I am interpreting correctly).

         

        Ray

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:41 AM
        To: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: FW: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts
        Importance: High

         

        Ray,

         

        Do you see any problems from the point of view of the GCOT regarding 
the following, in particular the amendments at the end and using the 
reformatted document for public comment?

         

        OSC members: Please send any comments you have on the following today 
because this will be discussed in the Council meeting early tomorrow.

         

        Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:40 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria
        Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Ray Fassett; Liz Gasster; Denise Michel; Julie 
Hedlund; Margie Milam
        Subject: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts

        Dear Avri and Chuck;
        
        Ken Bour and I spent a couple of hours today going over the new Bylaws 
and the recommended Council Ops Procedures in an effort to better understand 
the issues behind the recent brief dialogue on abstentions with Kristina and 
Phillip on the Council email list AND in an effort to test and or break the ops 
processes and voting mechanisms.
        
        As a result of our effort, we have have come up with a number of 
ideas/concepts we wanted to float by you prior to the Council meeting.
        
        1.   We've developed some edits to the recommendations - specifically 
Section 5.4 (# of votes cast) and section 3.5 (Quorum) that we think address 
the affirmative vote/no vote abstaining issue by providing some more clarity to 
the recommended voting procedure.  That potential compromise language is set 
forth at the end of this message.
        
        2.   At the conclusion of the Work Team's deliberations, noting that 
the team had focused on the substance of each specific recommendation and not 
on the overall format of the procedures, I suggested to Ray Fassett (copying 
Ray on this message) that in preparation for the public comment period, Staff 
could work on the format and presentation of the recommendations to make them 
more clear and clean. We've started some work in that regard - not making any 
substantive changes, but merely trying to pull different sections together and 
consolidating common subjects areas (e.g., voting ) where there may be 
references in more than one section of the recommendations.  We should have a 
suggested format finished for you all to take a look at tomorrow.
        
        3.   We discussed the conundrum of the incoming Council voting on the 
Ops Procedures (before new voting procedures exist).  We suggest that you 
consider creating a procedural bridge between the two Councils in which the 
outgoing Council "conditionally approves" the new procedures as a transitional 
matter (perhaps this could take place at a "special" Council meeting during the 
weekend in Seoul) and then have the incoming Council ratify them as its first 
order of business.  The new Council could then make changes over time as it 
works with and develops some experience with the new procedures. Haven't 
discussed this with the GC yet - just brainstorming.
        
        4.   We have also started to develop a a matrix/voting record 
spreadsheet as an unofficial tool for the new Chair and Glen to use for 
recording votes.  The idea is to have a clear and understandable score sheet 
that can be used during votes to easily show when voting thresholds have been 
met (or not). We'll get Glen's feedback on the concept and share that with you 
when she is comfortable with a draft document.
        
        We are hopeful that the language suggested below is useful. Your 
comments are most welcomed.  
        
        Cheers,
        
        RobH
        
        SUGGESTED REVISED LANGUAGE FOLLOWS. SUGGESTED CHANGES IN BOLD RED 
UNDERLINED TEXT.
        
        In the recommended Council Operating Procedures, we suggest some new 
language to modify Section 5.4 and 3.5 as follows:
        
        5.4 The Number of Votes Cast
         
        OLD: To pass, a motion must attain a majority of the votes cast in each 
house unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws. 
Abstentions count as votes cast and shall include a reason for the abstention.  
This has the effect of making an abstention count the same as a vote against 
except as described in ICANN Bylaws, ANNEX A, GNSO Policy-Development Process, 
Section 3, Initiation of PDP.  [INSERT LIVE LINK TO THE BYLAWS.]
         
        
        NEW:  Unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN 
Bylaws, to pass a motion or other action, greater than 50% of the eligible 
voters in each House must cast affirmative votes.  For all votes taken, the 
number of eligible voters in each House shall be fixed to the number of seats 
allocated in the Bylaws (a.k.a. the denominator) and is not affected by the 
number of members present or absent at the meeting in which the motion or other 
action is initiated.  Abstentions shall be recorded as non-votes and shall 
include a reason. 
        
        3.5. Quorum
         
        OLD: In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a meeting a quorum must 
be present.  A quorum is a majority of voting members, which includes at least 
one member of each Stakeholder Group. [INSERT LIVE LINK TO BYLAWS.] Whenever a 
vote is taken there must be a quorum. 
        
        NEW: In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be 
present.  A quorum is a majority of voting members in each House, which 
includes at least one member of each Stakeholder Group. 
        
        ***END SUGGESTED LANGUAGE ***