ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:09:17 -0400
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Aco32AvMutRFext3RAqGSlyi9gvBcgCtnxPwAAdbo2o=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions

I support.

Kristina Rosette 
Covington & Burling LLP 
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20004-2401 
voice: 202-662-5173 
direct fax: 202-778-5173 
main fax: 202-662-6291 
e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx 

This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been 
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank 
you for your cooperation. 

Sent from my Wireless Handheld 


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: 'Council GNSO' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Mon Sep 21 03:47:24 2009
Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions 

Fellow Council Members,
one issue debated but unresolved by the drafting team is the oddity in Council 
voting over abstentions.
To date an abstention has counted as a vote against the motion because of the 
way the old by-laws were written.
I believe this is no longer the case in the new by-laws and so the decision is 
up to us as Council as to what we want to put in our internal rules (the 
operating procedures).
The current draft continues the old practise.
I would like to propose an amendment to the draft op. procedures as follows:
5.4 "Abstentions will count towards the establishment of a quorum but do not 
count as votes cast." 

This will mean an abstention is just that a decision to not vote. At present it 
is not the case.(The ability to state why a member abstains remains).

The only rationale for the current situation is the the same rule applies for 
the Board. To my mind there are reasons why a Board may have such a rule that 
are not relevant to a policy development body such as Council.

Is everyone happy to make this change ?



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