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

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now that´s very clear to me with this table….

:)

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA








> On 11Jan, 2016, at 18:26, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> A simple majority is defined as a simple majority of each house which is 
> translates to:
> 
> Motion or Action 
> Reference 
> Threshold 
> CPH 
> 
> Conj. 
> NCPH
> 
> <6EA137C6-7196-41CC-8FC0-8F5409230316.png>
> 
> (see appendix 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures for all voting thresholds).
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> 
> On 12/01/16 01:15, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, my phone cut off the rest of the message:
>> 
>> Could you repost the relevant section of the operating procedures that 
>> defines the ways we can reach a "simple majority"?
>> 
>> Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 16:08, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>>> <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the correction Marika.
>>> Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
>>>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Johan
>>>> Helsingius" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>>> <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx 
>>>> <mailto: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
>>