RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
So a quorum might exist but the actual votes counted may not represent a quorum? Seems that if there were a large number of abstentions an action of the Council could be decided by a pretty small number. I think we need to give the various scenarious more thought. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Mon, September 21, 2009 2:47 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Fellow Council Members, Background one issue debated but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in Council voting over abstentions. To date an abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because of the way the old by-laws were written. I believe this is no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is up to us as Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the operating procedures). The current draft continues the old practise. Proposal I would like to propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as follows: 5.4 "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but do not count as votes cast." This will mean an abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it is not the case.(The ability to state why a member abstains remains). The only rationale for the current situation is the the same rule applies for the Board. To my mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that are not relevant to a policy development body such as Council. Is everyone happy to make this change ? Philip
I have a similar concern Tim. Because the GNSO Improvement Recommendations approved by the Board emhasize the importance of striving toward as strong a consensus as possible, any requirements that minimize the support needed for a given action would seem to go counter to that. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:34 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
So a quorum might exist but the actual votes counted may not represent a quorum? Seems that if there were a large number of abstentions an action of the Council could be decided by a pretty small number. I think we need to give the various scenarious more thought.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Mon, September 21, 2009 2:47 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Fellow Council Members, Background one issue debated but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in Council voting over abstentions. To date an abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because of the way the old by-laws were written. I believe this is no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is up to us as Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the operating procedures). The current draft continues the old practise.
Proposal I would like to propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as follows: 5.4 "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but do not count as votes cast." This will mean an abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it is not the case.(The ability to state why a member abstains remains). The only rationale for the current situation is the the same rule applies for the Board. To my mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that are not relevant to a policy development body such as Council. Is everyone happy to make this change ? Philip
If the number of abstentions is so high as that the actual votes aren't a quorum, it seems to me that (applying the two most common reasons for abstentions) either (a) so many Councilors have conflicts that it shouldn't be something that Council votes on; or (b) so many Councilors have procedural or substantive objections to a vote that it shouldn't be something that Council votes on. Either way, if it gets to that point, I don't think Council should be voting. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:10 PM To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions I have a similar concern Tim. Because the GNSO Improvement Recommendations approved by the Board emhasize the importance of striving toward as strong a consensus as possible, any requirements that minimize the support needed for a given action would seem to go counter to that. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:34 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
So a quorum might exist but the actual votes counted may not represent
a quorum? Seems that if there were a large number of abstentions an action of the Council could be decided by a pretty small number. I think we need to give the various scenarious more thought.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Mon, September 21, 2009 2:47 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Fellow Council Members, Background one issue debated but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in
Council voting over abstentions. To date an abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because
of the way the old by-laws were written. I believe this is no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is up to us as Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the operating procedures). The current draft continues the old practise.
Proposal I would like to propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as follows: 5.4 "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but
do not count as votes cast." This will mean an abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it is not the case.(The ability to state why a member abstains
remains). The only rationale for the current situation is the the same rule applies for the Board. To my mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that are not relevant to a policy development body such as Council. Is everyone happy to make this change ? Philip
participants (3)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Rosette, Kristina -
Tim Ruiz