Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of "spring cleaning" on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a "supermajority" threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren't otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked "pending" for several months. But I'd like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there's no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks- J.
Hi, as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks— J.
Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich. Comments from anyone else? Thanks- J. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:53 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn't on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I'm unsure what "long enough" could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I'm also of the opinion that a review - if required - shouldn't just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I'm not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To: GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of "spring cleaning" on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a "supermajority" threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren't otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked "pending" for several months. But I'd like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there's no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks- J.
Hi, I honestly don’t recall this topic being associated with the Spec. 13 issue. I may be wrong, of course. I can’t recall the details right now. For my part, I believed (and still do) that the Council made a bad decision on Spec. 13, but am not sure how a different voting threshold would have changed the outcome. I must be missing something. Maybe Mary or Julie can help with this, but did the idea to review the voting thresholds originate from a discussion on the Council, or did the SCI itself recommend that the voting thresholds be reviewed? In any case, since cross-community working groups are relatively new and becoming more and more common, it may be worthwhile considering adding voting thresholds specific to CCWG recommendations to the operating procedures. However, I believe the Council itself needs to agree to this before deferring the details to the SCI. To me, a simple majority to adopt recommendations with the gravity of those produced by the CWG-stewardship and CCWG-ACCT isn’t a very comforting thought. I believe the Council should require more agreement than a simple majority to adopt recommendations such as these. Thanks. Amr
On Apr 22, 2016, at 10:42 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich.
Comments from anyone else?
Thanks—
J.
From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:53 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
Hi,
as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this.
In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme.
In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
Council Colleagues -
Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds.
The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board.
Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority.
Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months.
But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR.
Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item.
Thanks—
J.
I’d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem. Although my time on Council has been brief, I’m not sure that we have actually experienced any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened. Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that didn’t promptly self-resolve? Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To: GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks— J.
Hello Paul and everyone, I don’t know that this was a “problem” inasmuch as several then-Councilors felt some discomfort at the thought that the voting threshold for a topic (Spec 13) on which the Board (through the NGPC) had requested GNSO Council input as to whether the proposed implementation was consistent or not with GNSO policy was a simple majority, whereas adopting the original PDP policy recommendations upon which the NGPC request was based required a higher threshold. In somewhat similar vein, the recent deliberations of this Council over the vote for the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal involved some discussion over the simple majority threshold, this time I believe in relation to the importance of the topic concerned. I’m not aware that there have been other, similar situations where Councilors have expressed concerns or unease, but I offer these two recent examples in the hope that they are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 14:48 To: 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds I’d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem. Although my time on Council has been brief, I’m not sure that we have actually experienced any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened. Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that didn’t promptly self-resolve? Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To:GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks— J.
Adding to Mary¹s examples, the first one would likely not occur again following the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations which have provided the GNSO Council with three new processes to deal with implementation (or other) issues, each of which has its own specific voting thresholds which are also included in the ICANN Bylaws. At the time of the Spec 13 question there was only the option of embarking on a PDP or deciding on the issue with a simple majority vote. The Council now has a number of additional processes to choose from. As a reminder, you will find the GNSO Policy Processes cheat sheet attached. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 16:27 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hello Paul and everyone, I don¹t know that this was a ³problem² inasmuch as several then-Councilors felt some discomfort at the thought that the voting threshold for a topic (Spec 13) on which the Board (through the NGPC) had requested GNSO Council input as to whether the proposed implementation was consistent or not with GNSO policy was a simple majority, whereas adopting the original PDP policy recommendations upon which the NGPC request was based required a higher threshold. In somewhat similar vein, the recent deliberations of this Council over the vote for the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal involved some discussion over the simple majority threshold, this time I believe in relation to the importance of the topic concerned. I¹m not aware that there have been other, similar situations where Councilors have expressed concerns or unease, but I offer these two recent examples in the hope that they are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 14:48 To: 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds I¹d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem. Although my time on Council has been brief, I¹m not sure that we have actually experienced any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened. Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that didn¹t promptly self-resolve? Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn¹t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I¹m unsure what ³long enough² could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I¹m also of the opinion that a review if required - shouldn¹t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I¹m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:James M. Bladel <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To:GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of ³spring cleaning² on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a ³supermajority² threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren¹t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked ³pending" for several months. But I¹d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there¹s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks J.
As ever, Mary and Marika are able to make sense of the mess with their excellent memories and records, and based on their comments, it seems that we're unlikely to face the same situation again, or at least quite unlikely. If I've understood that correctly, and given the perennial theme of volunteer burnout, it seems we'd be best to park this one for now and use SCI's time for more pressing matters. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:48:35 AM To: Mary Wong; Paul McGrady; 'WUKnoben'; 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Adding to Mary’s examples, the first one would likely not occur again following the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations which have provided the GNSO Council with three new processes to deal with implementation (or other) issues, each of which has its own specific voting thresholds which are also included in the ICANN Bylaws. At the time of the Spec 13 question there was only the option of embarking on a PDP or deciding on the issue with a simple majority vote. The Council now has a number of additional processes to choose from. As a reminder, you will find the GNSO Policy Processes cheat sheet attached. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 16:27 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hello Paul and everyone, I don’t know that this was a “problem” inasmuch as several then-Councilors felt some discomfort at the thought that the voting threshold for a topic (Spec 13) on which the Board (through the NGPC) had requested GNSO Council input as to whether the proposed implementation was consistent or not with GNSO policy was a simple majority, whereas adopting the original PDP policy recommendations upon which the NGPC request was based required a higher threshold. In somewhat similar vein, the recent deliberations of this Council over the vote for the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal involved some discussion over the simple majority threshold, this time I believe in relation to the importance of the topic concerned. I’m not aware that there have been other, similar situations where Councilors have expressed concerns or unease, but I offer these two recent examples in the hope that they are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 14:48 To: 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds I’d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem. Although my time on Council has been brief, I’m not sure that we have actually experienced any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened. Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that didn’t promptly self-resolve? Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To:GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks— J.
Thanks for all the valuable input. I join the “parking chorus” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather Forrest Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:16 AM To: Marika Konings ; Mary Wong ; Paul McGrady ; 'WUKnoben' ; 'James M. Bladel' ; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds As ever, Mary and Marika are able to make sense of the mess with their excellent memories and records, and based on their comments, it seems that we're unlikely to face the same situation again, or at least quite unlikely. If I've understood that correctly, and given the perennial theme of volunteer burnout, it seems we'd be best to park this one for now and use SCI's time for more pressing matters. Best wishes, Heather -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:48:35 AM To: Mary Wong; Paul McGrady; 'WUKnoben'; 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Adding to Mary’s examples, the first one would likely not occur again following the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations which have provided the GNSO Council with three new processes to deal with implementation (or other) issues, each of which has its own specific voting thresholds which are also included in the ICANN Bylaws. At the time of the Spec 13 question there was only the option of embarking on a PDP or deciding on the issue with a simple majority vote. The Council now has a number of additional processes to choose from. As a reminder, you will find the GNSO Policy Processes cheat sheet attached. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 16:27 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hello Paul and everyone, I don’t know that this was a “problem” inasmuch as several then-Councilors felt some discomfort at the thought that the voting threshold for a topic (Spec 13) on which the Board (through the NGPC) had requested GNSO Council input as to whether the proposed implementation was consistent or not with GNSO policy was a simple majority, whereas adopting the original PDP policy recommendations upon which the NGPC request was based required a higher threshold. In somewhat similar vein, the recent deliberations of this Council over the vote for the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal involved some discussion over the simple majority threshold, this time I believe in relation to the importance of the topic concerned. I’m not aware that there have been other, similar situations where Councilors have expressed concerns or unease, but I offer these two recent examples in the hope that they are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 14:48 To: 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds I’d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem. Although my time on Council has been brief, I’m not sure that we have actually experienced any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened. Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that didn’t promptly self-resolve? Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To:GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks— J.
Thanks to all for contributing to this discussion. It seems clear that this is currently a solution (or solution effort) in search of a problem. And given the other topics and activities competing for our attention, I concur that we can remove this item from our list of active projects. Thank you, J. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 2:15 To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Thanks for all the valuable input. I join the “parking chorus” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather Forrest<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:16 AM To: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> ; Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ; Paul McGrady<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> ; 'WUKnoben'<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; 'James M. Bladel'<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> ; 'GNSO Council List'<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds As ever, Mary and Marika are able to make sense of the mess with their excellent memories and records, and based on their comments, it seems that we're unlikely to face the same situation again, or at least quite unlikely. If I've understood that correctly, and given the perennial theme of volunteer burnout, it seems we'd be best to park this one for now and use SCI's time for more pressing matters. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:48:35 AM To: Mary Wong; Paul McGrady; 'WUKnoben'; 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Adding to Mary’s examples, the first one would likely not occur again following the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations which have provided the GNSO Council with three new processes to deal with implementation (or other) issues, each of which has its own specific voting thresholds which are also included in the ICANN Bylaws. At the time of the Spec 13 question there was only the option of embarking on a PDP or deciding on the issue with a simple majority vote. The Council now has a number of additional processes to choose from. As a reminder, you will find the GNSO Policy Processes cheat sheet attached. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 16:27 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hello Paul and everyone, I don’t know that this was a “problem” inasmuch as several then-Councilors felt some discomfort at the thought that the voting threshold for a topic (Spec 13) on which the Board (through the NGPC) had requested GNSO Council input as to whether the proposed implementation was consistent or not with GNSO policy was a simple majority, whereas adopting the original PDP policy recommendations upon which the NGPC request was based required a higher threshold. In somewhat similar vein, the recent deliberations of this Council over the vote for the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal involved some discussion over the simple majority threshold, this time I believe in relation to the importance of the topic concerned. I’m not aware that there have been other, similar situations where Councilors have expressed concerns or unease, but I offer these two recent examples in the hope that they are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 14:48 To: 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds I’d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem. Although my time on Council has been brief, I’m not sure that we have actually experienced any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened. Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that didn’t promptly self-resolve? Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Hi, as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this. In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme. In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM To:GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds Council Colleagues - Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds. The default voting threshold for the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board. Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work. Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born. The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR. Otherwise, if there’s no further interest, we'll close out the action item. Thanks— J.
participants (7)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Heather Forrest -
James M. Bladel -
Marika Konings -
Mary Wong -
Paul McGrady -
WUKnoben