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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

 

I?m good to go with the revisions wearing both my GCOT and OSC hats.

 

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 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 2009-09-23 14:46
To: Ray Fassett; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] RE: Further Council Ops Procedures Thoughts

 

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 ***