Philip, I do not support your amendment. Let me first copy the full section 5.4 as contained in the motion I made to set the context: "5.4 The Number of Votes Cast See ICANN Bylaws, Article X: Generic Names Supporting Organization, Section 3. GNSO Council, Subsections 10 and 11. INSERT LIVE LINK TO BYLAWS. <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient =1;page_name=INSERT%20LIVE%20LINK%20TO%20BYLAWS.> 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." The first reason for opposing your amendment and the less significant one is this: A quorum is determined before a vote is taken so it really doesn't make much sense to say "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum". The more important reason for opposing your amendment is related to the concern expressed by Tim. I think we should avoid allowing motions to be passed without significant support and your amendment would allow that in some circumstances. To properly understand the issue, I think it is important for us to recognize the following: With or without your amendment, the only motions that would be affected would be those that are not covered by the specific voting thresholds listed in the revised Bylaws approved by the Board in Article X, Section 11 because those thresholds require specific percentages of support from each House independent of the number of votes cast: "11. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A [link TBD]): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Super Majority"); d. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Super Majority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Super Majority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Super Majority; and f. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Super Majority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision." Excluding the six thresholds defined above, I personally believe that all other motions should not be passed unless they receive the approval of at least a simple majority of Councilors in each House. In that regard, I would support an amendment to the second sentence of 5.4 so that it would say, "To pass, a motion must attain a majority 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." (Note that I deleted "of the votes cast " after "majority" in the first sentence.) This is also consistent with the voting thresholds above. If we cannot reach at least a simple majority consensus in each house, then it is my opinion that we have insufficient reason for moving forward. I believe that a 'no consensus' decision is better than a decision to support an action that has only minority support of the full Council. Besides, if we do not in a given meeting have enough votes to pass a motion, there is nothing preventing us from acting on that motion at a later time when there is enough support. So it is not as if we are parallizing ourselves. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:47 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions 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