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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

I am afraid we are trying to square the circle on this abstention issue.  
 
Abstentions may occur for a lot of reasons.  But if one occurs in order to 
avoid a conflict of interest problem, then we cannot treat it as a functional  
"no" vote -- which we do if we insist that the denominator in calculating a 
voting threshold must always be the total number of people seated in the House 
or council. 
 
Let's assume that on a motion before the council, a councillor's financial 
interests will be directly benefited by defeat of the motion.  The councillor 
should refrain from voting on (or even from participating in the discussion of) 
the motion.  Let's assume the council consists of 10 people and that a majority 
vote is needed for the motion. 
 
However, if the councillor abstains for this reason, then if 5 vote for and 4 
against, the motion fails. Abstention will have achieved exactly the result 
that a conflict of interest policy should avoid at all costs -- the action of 
the councillor has directly benefitted his financial interest.    
 
If the councillor is able to truly abstain, so that his presence is not counted 
for purposes of achieving the voting threshold, then the vote (5-4) reflects 
the views of the majority of council members who were allowed (in accordance 
with conflict of interest policy) to vote, and should be enough to carry the 
motion. 
  
The same scenario could play out almost no matter what is the voting threshold 
required or the number of eligible voters.    
 
I emphasize that many abstentions will not be for conflict reasons -- quite 
commonly, it will be because the constituency/stakeholder group could not reach 
a position on the issue, or an issue arises suddenly and the councillor has 
decided that she will not vote absent instructions from her constituency/SG.    
 There is less of a problem counting the abstention for purposes of a voting 
threshold in this case -- though it still may not be a good idea.  But there 
would need to be an exception to this general rule for situations in which an 
abstention is dictated by conflict of interest rules.  
 
Steve
 
 


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:39 PM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] FW: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts


Here's the latest suggestion language for part of section 5.4.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:34 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Robert Hoggarth'; 'Avri Doria'
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'Ray Fassett'; 'Liz Gasster'; 'Denise Michel'; 'Julie 
Hedlund'; 'Margie Milam'
Subject: RE: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts



Chuck:

 

We agree that there is no reason to give abstentions another label.   Would 
this language be acceptable at the end of 4.2? 

 

Old language:  Abstentions shall be recorded as non-votes and shall include a 
reason.

 

New language:   "Council members are permitted to abstain in any vote, but must 
provide a reason which shall be recorded in the minutes along with the 
abstention."  

 

Ken

  

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:54 PM
To: Robert Hoggarth; Avri Doria
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Ray Fassett; Liz Gasster; Denise Michel; Julie Hedlund; 
Margie Milam; Ken Bour
Subject: RE: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts
Importance: High

 

Rob,

 

(Note I added Ken as a cc.)

 

After exchaning email messages with Ray, the more I think about it the less I 
like the following in the amended language for 5.4: "Abstentions shall be 
recorded as non-votes."  The term "non-vote" implies that someone didn't 
participate in the vote, which is not the case for an abstention.  A 'non-vote' 
applies when someone refuses to vote or is absent.  An abstention can happen 
because there is not consensus on approval or disapproval; it that case, it is 
a vote in my opinion.

 

Why should abstentions be counted as anything other than abstentions?  I 
suggest changing that sentence to simply this: "A reason shall be provided for 
an abstention."

 

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 ***