[Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Commenting on a specific point Ed raised:

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET> wrote:
> 

[SNIP]

> 2. This paragraph is simply wrong:
>  
> ‘Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure.  Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to discussion and recommendations for voting thresholds by which GNSO Council should approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.’
>  
> I refer to the word abstain, which in GNSO Operating Procedures §4.5 refers to instances where a Councilor does not vote on a particular matter or Motion before Council. The simple dictionary definition of abstain (Webster) consists of two definitional possibilities:
>  
> 1. to choose not to do or have something, or
>            2.to choose not to vote
>  
> The three DT members referenced did not abstain on matters before this Drafting Team. They voted on where to locate the powers we were charged to examine should be exercised and lost. They then participated fully in all discussions, including voting on all threshold issues. That is not abstention: that is full participation. That their full participation does not indicate a reversal of their views on the previous vote which they lost is quite obvious. One does not flow from the other. Nevertheless, I would not be opposed to a small statement indicating same.

I’m concerned that the disagreement here is just on wording, not on substance. Abstentions hold specific meaning in Council voting. To my knowledge, I have no recollection of GNSO WG members abstaining on positions in the past. They either support or do not support them. “abstained from indicating approval” to me, sounds like they did not support, which is true. The follow-up sentence to this beginning with “Nonetheless, all DT members…,” helps to clarify this. A simple solution to this may be to replace “abstained from indicating approval” to something like “reject”.

Additionally, my recollection is that the three DT members rejected the Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but this section says that they rejected (or abstained from indicating approval) the Council voting thresholds, which is not the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, the decision on “who” would exercise the powers on behalf of the GNSO was made prior to beginning discussions on the thresholds at all. At that point, we had only generally said that we could create new thresholds, if deemed necessary.

Thanks.

Amr