Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for today's call

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

thanks. 

So would that be the same supermajority that was required at the end of the PDP 
to send it as a supermajority of the GNSO?

And why, I am wondering did we not define a supermajority that matches the 
normal sense of 2/3 of each house as one of the alternatives.
I would note that you cannot reach 2/3 of each house without at least someone 
from each SG agreeing.

Finally, should whatever supermajority is, be defined specifically somewhere in 
either the by-laws or the procedures?

thanks

a.


On 8 Apr 2010, at 09:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Good question Avri.  It is defined in an indirect way in Bylaws Article
> X, Section 3, paragraph 9.c: "Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires
> an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the
> other House ("GNSO Supermajority")".
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:27 AM
>> To: PPSC List
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for today's call
>> 
>> 
>> thanks for this.
>> 
>> reminds me of a question i have.
>> 
>> where is Council super rmajority defined?  i was looking and 
>> did not see it - probably missed it right underneath my nose, 
>> but did not see it.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 08:44, James M. Bladel wrote:
>> 
>>> Good morning, everyone:
>>> 
>>> Attached, please see the agenda for our call today at 13:30 UTC.  I 
>>> think this is a fairly ambitious list, but let's endeavor to get 
>>> through as much as we can prior to Jeff's return next week.
>>> 
>>> Talk with you soon!
>>> 
>>> J.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------
>>> 
>>> <Voting Threshholds.docx>
>> 
>> 
>>