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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri & Chuck,

The term GNSO Supermajority is defined in the Bylaws in Article X, Section 3.9c:

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”);

Best Regards,
Margie

______________
Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
______________
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Gomes, Chuck [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:42 AM
To: Avri Doria; PPSC List
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for today's call

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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>