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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that is the only definition of supermajority and also believe
that that definition would apply in applying the Bylaws PDP requirement
for supermajority, thereby requiring the Board to have a 2/3 vote to
overrule it.  If I remember correctly, the reason we defined it that way
was to prevent one SG from being able to unilaterally block a
supermajority vote.

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 10:01 AM
> To: PPSC List
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for today's call
> 
> 
> 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>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>