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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
to that.

Chuck 

> -----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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>