[CCWG-ACCT] Voting weights in community mechanism
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Wed Jul 29 22:23:16 UTC 2015
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
> 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>
> > >
> > > 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
> > 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
> > 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
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community