ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:15:29 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Cc: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Mxe+3tv4RWCio00vJrPGdl1pwSxISNVYxAt2hiYlq7Y=; b=oRn9t08fMnjJhcBhePQh8nJzzuLc2M+jXvqDdfmHil7KQYtt+wcXtly9Y2M37JlOEGfqhu20eubNiT8/ACd1oVoS8PXd71L1hBFYWXVCYribR6FFJNSvLsmds3Qezjcq7bHnIENVChmeIWDNwPWjz/ehPFsTRSXAIQaQgkmIDdw=
  • In-reply-to: <CE228B63-4A6E-4B2B-9D63-95566C700DD9@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <EB53F723569A4E088BC175075E628C4D@WUKPC> <5693B548.8040008@julf.com> <D2B92BB1.A5CDD%jbladel@godaddy.com> <5693FEAF.9020705@julf.com>,<D2B9F554.58EB3%marika.konings@icann.org>,<CE228B63-4A6E-4B2B-9D63-95566C700DD9@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRTEuCSVTmBwTNl0a6wgd3cIzfGJ72WAUA//+8dICAAJsMgIAAROuAgAAMruaAAAL7zA==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Sorry, my phone cut off the rest of the message:

Could you repost the relevant section of the operating procedures that defines 
the ways we can reach a "simple majority"?

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 


> On Jan 11, 2016, at 16:08, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction Marika. 
> 
> Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan
>> Helsingius" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx>
>> 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
>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>