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.BB8CAfirstname.lastname@example.org> <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/220.127.116.11930
Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich.
Comments from anyone else?
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.
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.