Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually
counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules,
any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore,
by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the
remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).

Best regards,

Marika

On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan
Helsingius" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
>
>> On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not
>> the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO,
>> including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments.
>>It
>> will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having
>>the
>> effect of 'Support'.
>
>And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
>
>> One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is
>> limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments
>> filed by the Board or other groups.  This is essential to allow the CCWG
>> to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
>
>So we are assuming one more round of comments?
>
>> Hope this is helpful!
>
>Very much so, thanks!
>
>       Julf
>