[CCWG-ACCT] Does the proposed change to the GAC Bylaw create a new "mandatory voting requirement" for the ICANN Board?

[Greg Shatan]

I think if we bring abstentions into the equation, Alan's point seems to be
stronger, rather than weaker.

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).)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Greg

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> > On 19 Dec 2015, at 20:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > I will try again. What I am saying is just a mathematical truth.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 19/12/2015 03:39 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> >
> >> Alan
> >> I do not clearly understand your argument in saying " if a given
> >> issue required 2/3 majority to be rejected by the Board, then to accept
> >> the same issue, the Board requires 1/3 vote "
> >> There is no logic in that example?
> >> Regards
> >> Kavouss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151219/71e82897/attachment.html>