<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY
style="FONT-SIZE: 14px; WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Hi,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI
to review maybe others have more insight on this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has
been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its
implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the
council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review –
if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire
scheme.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales
before final decision.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: "><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jbladel@godaddy.com
href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">James M. Bladel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=council@gnso.icann.org
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">GNSO Council List</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting
Threshholds</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'><SPAN
id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">Council Colleagues -</DIV>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> </DIV>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">Donna, Heather, and I have been working with
Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open
items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting
Thresholds.</DIV>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> </DIV>The default voting threshold for
the GNSO is a simple majority, >50% of each House. Some
specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different
voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or <SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><FONT face=Calibri>an affirmative
vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House
(create an Issue Report)</FONT></SPAN>. All the current non-standardvoting
thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process,
including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP
recommendation before sending it on to the Board.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: medium; FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-standard"></SPAN>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> </DIV><SPAN id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-standard; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><FONT
face=Calibri,sans-serif>Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded
defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back
(regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) </FONT><FONT
face=Calibri,sans-serif>that passing some motions with a simple majority were
equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a
supermajority. </FONT></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: medium; FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-standard"></SPAN>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-standard; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-standard; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">Also, Council
noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise
covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability
work. Some<FONT face=Calibri,sans-serif> suggested that these topics
warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to
the SCI was born. </FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">The Councilors who initially raised
this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and
Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked
“pending" for several months. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><SPAN id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-standard; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri,sans-serif>But I’d like to disposition the action item
one way or the other. So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and
would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached </FONT><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">SCI Review Request)</FONT><FONT
face=Calibri,sans-serif>, </FONT><B
style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">please respond by Friday 22 APR.
</B><FONT face=Calibri,sans-serif> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Otherwise, if there’s no further
interest, we'll close out the action item. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">Thanks—</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">J.</DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>