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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So a quorum might exist but the actual votes counted may not represent a
quorum? Seems that if there were a large number of abstentions an action
of the Council could be decided by a pretty small number. I think we
need to give the various scenarious more thought.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures -
abstentions
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, September 21, 2009 2:47 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 Fellow Council Members,
Background
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.
 
Proposal
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 ?
 Philip