<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think if we bring abstentions into the equation, Alan's point seems to be stronger, rather than weaker.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We have a Board of 16 voting directors. A 2/3 majority is 11 (11/16 = 68.75%). (By contrast, a simple majority is 9 (50%+1).)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thus 11 Board members must vote to reject an item of GAC Advice under the proposed Bylaw. If 10 (62.5%) (or fewer) Board members vote to reject, Advice is (presumably) "accepted." Under this scenario, with no abstentions, 6 members (37.5%) have voted to accept (or, at least, not to reject) GAC Advice; thus, ICANN must abide by advice that supported by only 6 out of 16 Directors. And that is the best case scenario when a vote to reject falls just short.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Under this same scenario, with 10 votes to reject, and 5 members vote to accept the advice and 1 abstains, we now have 31.25% of the Board in favor of the advice we must all abide by. If there are 2 abstentions and 4 in favor, the percentage in support drops to 25% (and then to 18.75%, 12.5%, 6.25% and 0% as abstentions increase).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If only 9 members vote to reject (a simple majority) and none abstain, then the accepted advice is supported by at most 43.75 of the Board. If one abstains, the percent in support is 37.5% and so forth.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If only 8 members vote to reject, at best 50% of the Board supports the advice. If one abstains, that drops to 43.75% and so forth.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If only 7 members vote to reject, we finally get to the point where the majority of the Board supports the Advice (best case scenario, assuming no abstentions). With one abstention, that drops to 50% and so forth.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On 19 Dec 2015, at 20:41, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I will try again. What I am saying is just a mathematical truth.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Alan<br>
><br>
> At 19/12/2015 03:39 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Alan<br>
>> I do not clearly understand your argument in saying " if a given<br>
>> issue required 2/3 majority to be rejected by the Board, then to accept<br>
>> the same issue, the Board requires 1/3 vote "<br>
>> There is no logic in that example?<br>
>> Regards<br>
>> Kavouss<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>