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

[Alan Greenberg]

Malcolm, you are correct hat I did not address how abstentions would 
impact this. Mea Culpa.

That being said, I would greatly appreciate NOT having personal slurs 
from you. If you cannot keep this at a civil level, please do not post.

I happen to be VERY aware about how abstentions are treated, to the 
extent that I know that they are handled VERY differently in varying 
organizations and in fact at times within the same body.

Alan

At 19/12/2015 06:47 PM, Malcolm Hutty 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