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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

If the number of abstentions is so high as that the actual votes aren't
a quorum, it seems to me that (applying the two most common reasons for
abstentions) either (a) so many Councilors have conflicts that it
shouldn't be something that Council votes on; or (b) so many Councilors
have procedural or substantive objections to a vote that it shouldn't be
something that Council votes on. Either way, if it gets to that point, I
don't think Council should be voting.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO
Subject: 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
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
> 
> 
>