<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Correct, Alan.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Each group can come to a decision according to its own rules. This can be voting and it can even be voting based on a process specifically designed for the community powers. The GNSO could even deviate from its usual voting and bicameral approach, should it choose to do so. The CCWG is not prescriptive in that regard.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I hope this helps,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Thomas <br><br><div><span style="font-size: 13pt;">---</span></div><div><a href="http://rickert.net">rickert.net</a></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>Am 03.11.2015 um 10:37 schrieb Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Greg, I don't have the docs at hand, but my recollection is that AC/SO
are allowed to make a decision according to their own rules. In the case
of the ALAC, for an issue as substantive as using one of the powers,
unless the result was clearly unanimous with all members participating,
we would vote.<br><br>
Indeed opinions could vary, but if there is even a feeling that the
current method of "majority) (I vaguely recall it might be either of
two counts) is in sufficient, then it certainly should be a discussion
that the GNSO Council should have, and I don't recall such an issue being
formally raised.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 02/11/2015 11:45 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Alan,<br><br>
If the decision-making methodology specifies that the SO/ACs need to each
make their decisions through a consensus process, the GNSO Council voting
process would not seem to qualify.<br><br>
As to whether the current system is "deemed quite
satisfactory," opinions can certainly differ.<br><br>
Greg <br><br>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Greg, I have to disagree with you on several counts.<br><br>
</dd><dd>The GNSO voting mechanisms were indeed designed to make decisions
based on a majority or supermajority. The current two-house voting
thresholds were designed to emulate the simpler vote-counting in the last
incarnation of the GNSO (I was one of the people who agonized over how to
emulate those earlier simpler rules). Perhaps the current rule for
"majority" is no satisfactory and needs to be changed, but if
so, that is a decision that the GNSO can make.<br><br>
</dd><dd>The GNSO uses a "majority" to decide to accept or reject
new rules, and it has been used for a host of other types of decisions
over the years.<br><br>
</dd><dd>The methodology is deemed quite satisfactory to make decision related
to the management of policy. But it is also what will be used in deciding
if the GNSO will creation or support a petition for the new powers. And
it will be the methodology used to decide to remove a GNSO
director.<br><br>
</dd><dd>The GNSO is not unique in having multiple positions amongst its
members.<br><br>
</dd><dd>I could go on...<font color="#888888"><br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font color="#888888">Alan</font><br><br>
<br><br>
</dd><dd>At 01/11/2015 07:51 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I have continuing concerns at the overall level (this does not
describe a consensus process) and specifically as regards the view of the
GNSO (the GNSO does not have a process for consensus decision making; the
process fails to recognize that the GNSO is an organization for gTLD
policy-making (and the GNSO Council is a policy management body), and
that for any other purpose the groups participating in the GNSO represent
discrete stakeholder communities). Nothing I've read or heard has
resolved these concerns.<br><br>
</dd><dd>However, whether we view this as a consensus process or a
proto-voting process, I'm still grappling with the "weighting"
issue (which in turn leads to the "fractional" or
"splitting" issue).<br><br>
</dd><dd>In order to visualize the relative weights under 3 different
scenarios, I prepared 3 pie charts, which I've put in the attached
document. (Note that this reflects my concern that the stakeholder
communities participating in the GNSO should be viewed separately for
purposes other then gTLD policy-making. Note also that I've assumed
that any "ccNSO" participation would need to take into account
non-ccNSO ccTLDs, so I've reflected that in the pie chart
labeling.) Apologies for some "rounding errors"
(literally); but these do not affect the substance. Use these
charts as you see fit.... I'm happy to revise, or prepare other
charts, if need be.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Greg<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd></dl></blockquote>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>WP1 mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>