[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Wed Jul 29 22:23:16 UTC 2015

Dear Kavouss,

You are right.

If SOs and ACs are not participating as voters, then they do not vote. They
do not abstain or do anything else. They can *advise* whatever they like.
But they cast no votes, have no ballots, etc.


On 30 July 2015 at 10:18, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All
> I do not understand what legally means the abstention of non participation
> . The voting results is always counted based on those who participate in
> voting .
> Those who do not participate SHALL NOT be counted as Abstention.
> This is alphabet of voting and the issue must be mentioned in each of
> voting procedure as follows:
> X% of those participating in voting and Vote.
> Last night I  verified more than 20 convention, constitution,charter ,
> agreement ,covenant and ..... All do not count non voters as abstention
> Regards
> Kavouss
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 05:31, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2015 9:14 pm, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 29 Jul 2015, at 20:37, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > A concern has come to our attention with this latest, new, proposal.
> If SSAC and RSSAC have 10 votes out of 35, they could jointly block a Board
> recall (75% votes required, 27 votes). Since they are both composed of
> individuals appointed by the Board, some may question their independence in
> case such a power is triggered. This could raise concerns of conflicts of
> interest.
> >
> > It's not just that. If we go with the algorithm that an abstention has
> the same effect as a vote against (as discussed on the call yesterday) then
> they will be certain to block recall,
> >
> SO: I think it may be good to distinct the type of abstentions; Abstention
> of participating SO/AC would be different from Abstention of
> non-participating SO/AC. I expect the later will not affect/impact the
> votes in any way.
> >
> since these two organisations have made it abundantly clear that they do
> not wish to vote, do not consider it appropriate to their mandate, and have
> no intention of doing so under any circumstances.
> >
> SO: Well that could be a view of the present but the proposal we are
> developing now is for the future. One of the duo did formerly join this
> working group recently (which I think was a good thing) even though there
> were indication of not joining at the earlier stage of this process. So
> things can change and those stress tests needs to be done and sufficiently
> catered for in the ccwg report/proposal
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150730/86d9cca7/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list