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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All
 
regarding the suggested revised language I understand that abstentions shall be 
understood as non-votes but shall have an effect on the voting results (%) by 
adding them to the denominator. That I accept.
The suggested text for "3.5 Quorum" I accept as well.
 
Best regards
 
Wolf-Ulrich

  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. September 2009 16:41
An: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-osc] FW: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts
Wichtigkeit: Hoch


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 ***