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

["McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks all.  I'm confused.  We appear to be talking about the formal mechanisms 
of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call being a time to go 
through the "temperature taking" document that the subgroup went through and 
then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG (perhaps by letter but most 
likely not a formal up or down vote) and that the formal up or down may come at 
a later date when we have the next draft from the CCWG.  Is that still the 
plan?  If not, I need to let me C know that and start to get more formal 
instructions than the "temperature taking" comments I have been pushing my 
folks for.  Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Best,
Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report


Thanks for the correction Marika. 

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 


> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.