Re: FW: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry for the late reply - I have been off-line most of the weekend.

I was replying to TOny who mentioned that one SG could effective veto 
any policy vote, because the original proposal required a 2/3 vote 
from both houses, and except for the trivial case with only one 
council member per SG, each SG would have more that 33.3% of the votes.
This can be addressed trough any number of models. I was suggesting 
that one such model would be at least 2/3 in one house and at least 
50% in the other.
Alan

At 18/07/2008 06:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> If I understand your point (and I am not sure I do) it is a non problem,
> because it is easily avoided by specifying in the bylaws that the
> definition of supermajority is a fixed percentage relative to the number
> of voters in a chamber.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Perhaps we could address the problem of one
> > stakeholder group voting against a consensus
> > policy and the effectively vetoing is would be to
> > define a super majority as 2/3 in one house and a simple majority in
> the
> > other.
> >
> > Alan
> >