[council] Regarding vote count for motion to request an issues report on IGOs

[Mawaki Chango]

Thanks Bruce, it's crystal clear now! You may jump 2 or 3
messages ahead in this thread :-)

Mawaki

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello Mawaki
> > 
> > I just listened to the MP3. Regarding the item 5 (see
> below), my
> > count of the votes does not match the one you announced on
> the
> > call, Bruce, i.e. "10 votes in favor". I have counted 8 YES
> > (Bruce, Philip, Kristina, Mike, Ross, Alistair, Tony, and
> Greg),
> > 6 NO (Avri, Robin, Norbert, Sophia, Chuck, and Edmond), and
> 1
> > Abstention (Thomas).
> 
> My notes recorded the following votes in favour of the motion:
> 
> Philip Sheppard (1 vote)
> Mike Rodenbaugh (1 vote)
> Alistair Dixon (1 vote)
> Tony Harris (1 vote)
> Greg Ruth (1 vote)
> Ross Rader (2 votes)
> Bruce Tonkin (2 votes)
> Kristina Rosette (1 vote)
> 
> 8 Council members accounting for 10 votes, voted in favour.
> 
> The difference in count is because I have used weighted voting
> in
> accordance with the bylaws:
> (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X)
> 
> "The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast
> shall be
> equalized so that the aggregate number of votes of
> representatives
> selected by the Constituencies (currently the gTLD Registries
> and
> Registrars) that are under contract with ICANN obligating them
> to
> implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the number of
> votes of
> representatives selected by other Constituencies. Initially,
> each member
> of the GNSO Council selected by the gTLD Registries
> Constituency or the
> Registrars Constituency shall be entitled to cast two votes
> and all
> other members (including those selected by the Nominating
> Committee)
> shall be entitled to cast one vote. In the event that there is
> a change
> in the Constituencies that are entitled to select voting
> members of the
> GNSO Council, the Board shall review the change in
> circumstances and by
> resolution revise the procedure for equalization of votes in a
> manner
> consistent with this paragraph 2."
> 
> With respect to a call for an issues report, this is covered
> under:
> 
> "The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least
> twenty-five
> percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any
> meeting in
> which a motion to initiate the PDP is made."
> 
> There were 15 Council members present at the meeting,
> accounting for a
> total 20 votes.
> 
> Thus 8 council members, accounting for 10 votes, was
> sufficient to
> request that the staff produce an issues report.
> 
> I hope this is clear.   
> 
> 
> Note that once we receive the issues report the bylaws state:
> 
> "A vote of more than 33% of the Council members present in
> favor of
> initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the PDP; unless
> the Staff
> Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly within
> the scope of
> the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case a
> Supermajority Vote
> of the Council members present in favor of initiating the PDP
> will be
> required to initiate the PDP."
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>