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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to all for contributing to this discussion.

It seems clear that this is currently a solution (or solution effort) in search 
of a problem.  And given the other topics and activities competing for our 
attention, I concur that we can remove this item from our list of active 
projects.

Thank you,

J.


From: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 2:15
To: Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mary Wong 
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, Paul McGrady 
<policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 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 
Threshholds

Thanks for all the valuable input.
I join the “parking chorus”

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


From: Heather Forrest<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:16 AM
To: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> ; Mary 
Wong<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> ; Paul McGrady<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
; 'WUKnoben'<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 'James M. 
Bladel'<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 'GNSO Council 
List'<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting 
Threshholds


As ever, Mary and Marika are able to make sense of the mess with their 
excellent memories and records, and based on their comments, it seems that 
we're unlikely to face the same situation again, or at least quite unlikely. If 
I've understood that correctly, and given the perennial theme of volunteer 
burnout, it seems we'd be best to park this one for now and use SCI's time for 
more pressing matters.



Best wishes,



Heather

________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf 
of Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:48:35 AM
To: Mary Wong; Paul McGrady; 'WUKnoben'; 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting 
Threshholds

Adding to Mary’s examples, the first one would likely not occur again following 
the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations which have provided 
the GNSO Council with three new processes to deal with implementation (or 
other) issues, each of which has its own specific voting thresholds which are 
also included in the ICANN Bylaws. At the time of the Spec 13 question there 
was only the option of embarking on a PDP or deciding on the issue with a 
simple majority vote. The Council now has a number of additional processes to 
choose from. As a reminder, you will find the GNSO Policy Processes cheat sheet 
attached.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 16:27
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
'WUKnoben' 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "James 
M. 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 
Threshholds

Hello Paul and everyone,

I don’t know that this was a “problem” inasmuch as several then-Councilors felt 
some discomfort at the thought that the voting threshold for a topic (Spec 13) 
on which the Board (through the NGPC) had requested GNSO Council input as to 
whether the proposed implementation was consistent or not with GNSO policy was 
a simple majority, whereas adopting the original PDP policy recommendations 
upon which the NGPC request was based required a higher threshold.

In somewhat similar vein, the recent deliberations of this Council over the 
vote for the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal involved some discussion over 
the simple majority threshold, this time I believe in relation to the 
importance of the topic concerned.

I’m not aware that there have been other, similar situations where Councilors 
have expressed concerns or unease, but I offer these two recent examples in the 
hope that they are helpful.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 14:48
To: 'WUKnoben' 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'James M. 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 
Threshholds

I’d also like to hear concrete examples of the purported problem.  Although my 
time on Council has been brief, I’m not sure that we have actually experienced 
any deadlock, other than the Bladel election kerfuffle which was quickly 
resolved once everyone went back to their camps to find out what happened.

Has the current voting threshold arrangement resulted in any real problems that 
didn’t promptly self-resolve?

Best,
Paul


From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 06:54 AM
To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Open action item - SCI Review of Council Voting 
Threshholds

Hi,

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

Wolf-Ulrich

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 
supermajority.

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.

Thanks—

J.