In relation to question 1, the reason for referring to the ICANN Bylaws is that these are the governing rules. The GNSO Council voting result table is derived from the ICANN Bylaws. It is, therefore, recommended to refer to the authoritative document, which are the ICANN Bylaws. With regard to question 2, I see what you mean. I've made a couple of small edits which might address your concern as it now specifically refers to items that are excluded from the consent agenda instead of the previous wording which seemed to imply that only items that are subject to a simple majority vote are eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda. Further comments / edits welcome!  

With best regards,

Marika

P.S. To facilitate review, I've accepted all the changes from the previous version.

From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
Subject: AW: For final review - consent agenda

Thanks Marika,
 
Second phrase in the draft says: "All items that are not subject to a simple majority vote (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, section 3-9) or are subject to absentee voting (see section 4.4. of the GNSO Operating Procedures) are not eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda."
Two questions: 1. Why don't we refer to the GNSO concil votings results table (which make reference to the bylaws, too)? 2. Excluding items from the consent agenda I understand we're here referring to items only which need a council vote. In other words: it should be clear that items not needing a council vote are not excluded.
 

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

 

Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings
Gesendet: Montag, 4. Juni 2012 15:59
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For final review - consent agenda

Dear All,

As discussed during the SCI meeting last week, please find attached for final review the latest version of the proposed language for the consent agenda. 

As a reminder, this issue was discussed extensively at the SCI meeting of 3 May (see notes of the meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/JMTbAQ) and the language as originally proposed by J. Scott was updated accordingly (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00172.html).

The SCI intends to finalize this language at its next meeting, so if you have any objections and/or suggestions, please share those with the mailing list as soon as possible.

With best regards,

Marika