[CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?

[Malcolm Hutty]

Not at all. You are ignoring extensions. But then, you showed you didn't understand the concept of abstention when we discussed the Community Process. 

> On 19 Dec 2015, at 20:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> I will try again. What I am saying is just a mathematical truth.
> 
> I a Bylaw says that to REJECT something (whether it is GAC Advice or a GNSO PDP Recommendation or where to go have dinner) at least 2/3 of the Board must reject. That is, 1/3 or less of the Board opt to accept. If the Board does NOT reject, then it means that less that 2/3 voted to reject. That is mathematically identical to greater than 1/3 accepts, sine the total must be 1.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 19/12/2015 03:39 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> 
>> Alan
>> I do not clearly understand your argument in saying " if a given
>> issue required 2/3 majority to be rejected by the Board, then to accept
>> the same issue, the Board requires 1/3 vote "
>> There is no logic in that example?
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community