[council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

[James M. Bladel]

Thanks for the correction Marika. 

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 


> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually
> counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules,
> any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore,
> by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the
> remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan
> Helsingius" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf at julf.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
>> 
>>> On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not
>>> the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO,
>>> including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments.
>>> It
>>> will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having
>>> the
>>> effect of 'Support'.
>> 
>> And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
>> 
>>> One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is
>>> limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments
>>> filed by the Board or other groups.  This is essential to allow the CCWG
>>> to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
>> 
>> So we are assuming one more round of comments?
>> 
>>> Hope this is helpful!
>> 
>> Very much so, thanks!
>> 
>>    Julf
>