[CCWG-ACCT] Minority Statements

[Alan Greenberg]

Ed, I believe that I was the first one to make a strong statement 
that abstentions should be excluded from the vote. As few of us 
worked VERY hard to come up with a vote-counting methodology that did 
that and at the same time did not allow a very small part of the 
community (the ones who "care" about the issue) to make momentous 
decisions on behalf of ICANN.

We did arrive at some scenarios that were acceptable from the point 
of view of outcomes, but that were difficult to implement and perhaps 
more importantly to explain. In addition to the simple Yes vs No 
count that you allude to, it involved parallel requirements for a 
minimum number of SO/ACs to support the proposition (and that support 
was absolute, only counting Yes votes vs the maximum that could be 
cast), and perhaps requiring a minimum number of non-sbstention votes 
to be cast. As I said, it might work, but would be a black-box and 
completely opaque method to those who did not take the time to 
thoroughly understand it.

If you can come up with a simple, clear way of doing it, please propose one.

Alan


At 01/08/2015 08:10 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>About twenty minutes ago I submitted directly to the Chairs, per the 
>instructions given to us by Thomas in his email of 29 July, two 
>minority statements for (hopefully) inclusion in the report about to 
>be released for public comment. I had not intended to file any 
>minority statement but, upon reflection, two aspects of our proposal 
>caused me concern.
>
>The statements are attached here for community inspection and review.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Edward Morris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community