[council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I honestly don’t recall this topic being associated with the Spec. 13 issue. I may be wrong, of course. I can’t recall the details right now. For my part, I believed (and still do) that the Council made a bad decision on Spec. 13, but am not sure how a different voting threshold would have changed the outcome. I must be missing something. Maybe Mary or Julie can help with this, but did the idea to review the voting thresholds originate from a discussion on the Council, or did the SCI itself recommend that the voting thresholds be reviewed?

In any case, since cross-community working groups are relatively new and becoming more and more common, it may be worthwhile considering adding voting thresholds specific to CCWG recommendations to the operating procedures. However, I believe the Council itself needs to agree to this before deferring the details to the SCI. To me, a simple majority to adopt recommendations with the gravity of those produced by the CWG-stewardship and CCWG-ACCT isn’t a very comforting thought. I believe the Council should require more agreement than a simple majority to adopt recommendations such as these.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 10:42 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich.
> 
> Comments from anyone else?
> 
> Thanks—
> 
> J.
> 
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:53 
> To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
> 
> Hi,
>  
> as I wasn’t on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to review maybe others have more insight on this.
>  
> In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. But I’m unsure what “long enough” could mean here and whether the council has already got to this level. I’m also of the opinion that a review – if required - shouldn’t just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme.
>  
> In summary, I’m not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales before final decision.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: James M. Bladel
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
>  
> Council Colleagues -
>  
> Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of “spring cleaning” on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds.
>  
> The default voting threshold for the  GNSO is a simple majority,  >50% of each House.  Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a different voting threshold such as, for example, a “supermajority” threshold or an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board.
>  
> Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a supermajority. 
>  
> Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren’t otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and Accountability work.  Some suggested that these topics warranted a supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was born.  The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing procedures, so this item has been marked “pending" for several months. 
>  
> But I’d like to disposition the action item one way or the other.  So, if you believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR.  
>  
> Otherwise, if there’s no further interest,  we'll close out the action item. 
>  
> Thanks—
>  
> J.