<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236371422-21092009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Philip,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236371422-21092009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236371422-21092009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I do not support your amendment. Let me first copy
the full section 5.4 as contained in the motion I made to set the
context:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236371422-21092009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=236371422-21092009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>"5.4 The Number of Votes Cast</FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>See ICANN Bylaws, Article X: Generic
Names Supporting Organization, Section 3. GNSO Council, Subsections 10 and 11.
</FONT><A class=incipient title="[click to create page]"
href="https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;page_name=INSERT%20LIVE%20LINK%20TO%20BYLAWS."
jQuery1253563210640="19"><FONT face=Arial size=2>INSERT LIVE LINK TO
BYLAWS.</FONT></A></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>To pass, a motion must attain a
majority of the votes cast in each house unless otherwise specified in these
procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws. Abstentions count as votes cast and shall
include a reason for the abstention."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>T<SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>he first reason for opposing your amendment and the
less significant one is this: A quorum is determined before a vote is taken so
it really doesn't make much sense to say "<FONT color=#000000>Abstentions will
count towards the establishment of a quorum</FONT>".
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>The more important reason for opposing your amendment
is related to the concern expressed by Tim. I think we should avoid
allowing motions to be passed without significant support and your amendment
would allow that in some circumstances.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>To properly understand the issue, I think it is
important for us to recognize the following: With or without your
amendment, the only motions that would be affected would be those that are not
covered by the specific voting thresholds listed in the revised Bylaws approved
by the Board in Article X, Section 11 because those thresholds require specific
percentages of support from each House independent of the number of votes
cast:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>"<FONT size=3>11. Except as otherwise specified in
these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default
threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple
majority vote of each House. </P>
<DIR>
<P align=left>The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following
GNSO actions: </P>
<DIR>
<P align=left>a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more
than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; </P>
<P align=left>b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
described in Annex A [link TBD]): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33%
of each House or more than 66% of one House; </P>
<P align=left>c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote
of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Super
Majority"); </P>
<P align=left>d. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Super Majority:
requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder
Groups supports the Recommendation; </P>
<P align=left>e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Super Majority:
requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Super Majority; and </P>
<P align=left>f. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on
Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a
two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the
GNSO Super Majority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect
to any contracting party affected by such contract
provision.</FONT>"</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P></DIR></DIR>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>Excluding the six thresholds defined above, I
personally believe that all other motions should not be passed unless they
receive the approval of at least a simple majority of Councilors in each
House. In that regard, I would support an amendment to the second sentence
of 5.4 so that it would say, "To pass, a motion must attain a majority
in each house unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN
Bylaws. Abstentions count as votes cast and shall include a reason for the
abstention." (Note that I deleted "of the votes cast " after "majority" in
the first sentence.) This is also consistent with the voting thresholds
above.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>If we cannot reach at least a simple majority consensus
in each house, then it is my opinion that we have insufficient reason for moving
forward. I believe that a 'no consensus' decision is better than a
decision to support an action that has only minority support of the full
Council. Besides, if we do not in a given meeting have enough votes to
pass a motion, there is nothing preventing us from acting on that motion at a
later time when there is enough support. So it is not as if we are parallizing
ourselves.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=236371422-21092009>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip
Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 21, 2009 3:47 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
'Council GNSO'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating
Procedures - abstentions<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=734373807-21092009>Fellow Council
Members,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=734373807-21092009>Background</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=734373807-21092009>one issue debated
but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in Council voting over
abstentions.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=734373807-21092009>To date an
abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because of the way the old
by-laws were written.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=734373807-21092009>I believe this is
no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is up to us as
Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the operating
procedures).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=734373807-21092009>The current draft
continues the old practise.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=734373807-21092009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=734373807-21092009>Proposal</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=734373807-21092009>I would like to
propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as
follows:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=734373807-21092009><SPAN lang=EN-GB>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>5.4<SPAN class=734373807-21092009>
</SPAN>"Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but do
not<SPAN class=734373807-21092009> </SPAN>count as votes cast." </FONT></P>
<P><SPAN class=734373807-21092009><FONT face=Arial size=2>This will mean an
abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it is not the
case.(The ability to state why a member abstains remains).</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=734373807-21092009><FONT face=Arial size=2>The only rationale
for the current situation is the the same rule applies for the Board. To my
mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that are not relevant
to a policy development body such as Council.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=734373807-21092009><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is everyone
happy to make this change ?</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=734373807-21092009><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Philip</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=734373807-21092009><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>