ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds

  • To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 20:42:04 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: t-online.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;t-online.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=godaddy.com;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=tIuKLKSDk4nPx2vOxGS9QLzhNda2k33I/GwJ2/UgEnQ=; b=sivnvB8Jzk2va33N6RWnAOfb2vS2csR0PmNIcRK0p/hn4JcLqWIsLCai8GCOJgkFplC8JEBXAwqLv2bub/oCrbC21vJT8x/gq6BCMMeB1x3Vn/lL+nqHKhvRnkb/Z58kkw6np4zFKYq1fHec+BvO9PsISt8XT76YcMmh/GswCI8=
  • In-reply-to: <03B38BFD4994484AAD60789E5829EC6D@WUKPC>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D33D8375.BB8CA%jbladel@godaddy.com> <03B38BFD4994484AAD60789E5829EC6D@WUKPC>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRm2GD2miy6pI24USEElWTUMkUuJ+V5G+AgAA/0YA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich.

Comments from anyone else?



From: WUKnoben 
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:53
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting 


as I wasn't on council when this was raised as a potential item for the SCI to 
review maybe others have more insight on this.

In principle I see justification for a review after a voting scheme has been in 
use for a time period long enough to become acquainted with its implications. 
But I'm unsure what "long enough" could mean here and whether the council has 
already got to this level. I'm also of the opinion that a review - if required 
- shouldn't just focus on the thresholds rather than the entire scheme.

In summary, I'm not against but would be happy to hear concrete rationales 
before final decision.

Best regards


From: James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:05 AM
To: GNSO Council List<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting Threshholds

Council Colleagues -

Donna, Heather, and I have been working with Staff to do a bit of "spring 
cleaning" on our Action Items list. One of the open items from last year calls 
for the SCI to review GNSO Council Voting Thresholds.

The default voting threshold for the  GNSO is a simple majority,  >50% of each 
House.  Some specific votes (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sec.3(9)) require a 
different voting threshold such as, for example, a "supermajority" threshold or 
an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or 
majority of one House (create an Issue Report). All the current 
non-standardvoting thresholds relate to votes that are linked to a Policy 
Development Process, including for example: terminating an existing PDP, or 
modifying a PDP recommendation before sending it on to the Board.

Currently, any vote that is not specifically excluded defaults to the simple 
majority vote. There was some discussion a while back (regarding Council 
adoption of Spec 13) that passing some motions with a simple majority were 
equivalent to amending existing (2007) PDPs, which would require a 

Also, Council noted that we were frequently voting on situations that weren't 
otherwise covered, including motions related to the IANA transition and 
Accountability work.  Some suggested that these topics warranted a 
supermajority threshold, and the Action Item to send this over to the SCI was 
born.  The Councilors who initially raised this issue have since moved on, and 
we completed the votes on IANA and Accountability using our existing 
procedures, so this item has been marked "pending" for several months.

But I'd like to disposition the action item one way or the other.  So, if you 
believe this topic is still a concern and would like to volunteer to take the 
lead (see attached SCI Review Request), please respond by Friday 22 APR.

Otherwise, if there's no further interest,  we'll close out the action item.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>