[CCWG-ACCT] RV: A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem

[James Gannon]

Even when component parts of said community have expressed a wish to not be included in certain votes? I cannot see the logic in forcing people to do things against their will.

-James




On 01/10/2015 15:06, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

>The simple point is that decisions taken by the elected executive of the community should not be able to be overturned by anything less than a qualified majority of that community as a whole. 
>
>It's quite simple and it means that no such decisions should be allowed with less than the support from at least 4 SO/AC.
>
>best
>
>Jorge
>
>Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>> Am 01.10.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA>:
>> 
>> My view is that if someone chooses not to vote (s)he chooses not to
>> vote. That is most certainly not capture.
>> 
>> el
>> 
>> In 2015-10-01 15:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> Pls be so kind and think of a scenario that only two or three out
>>> of 7 SOs and ACs vote then the rest not voting will be captured by
>>> those two or three that voting .Even those two or three that
>>> voting may not have unanimous position .
>>> It is risky situation.
>>> Pls read my example and analyze the outcome.
>>> 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