Re: [gnso-osc] RE: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts
fwiw, I agree with Chuck. There is a real difference between abstaining and not voting. David At 01:45 PM 9/23/2009, Gomes, Chuck wrote: 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 ThoughtsI 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 DoriaCc: Glen de Saint Géry; Ray Fassett; Liz Gasster; Denise Michel; Julie Hedlund; Margie MilamSubject: 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, RobHSUGGESTED 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 CastOLD: 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. QuorumOLD: 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 *** David W. Maher Senior Vice President - Law & Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Ave, #200 Reston, VA 20190 USA (v) +1-312-876-8055 (f) +1-312-876-7934 http://www.pir.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
|