RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures - abstentions
I have a similar concern Tim. Because the GNSO Improvement
Recommendations approved by the Board emhasize the importance of
striving toward as strong a consensus as possible, any requirements that
minimize the support needed for a given action would seem to go counter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:34 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures - abstentions
> 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.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Operating Procedures -
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, September 21, 2009 2:47 am
> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
> 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 ?