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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think that defining it this way is problematic, we should define it 
separately, otherwise one could argue that supermajority for PDPs that change 
contractual conditions is not really defined as the only refers to initiating 
not concluding.  but maybe I am just being paranoid about the litigious nature 
of ICANN participants.

Also, I understand why the non blocking supermajority would be an option, but I 
do not understand what a regular supermajority is not also defined.  Assuming a 
world whee council members were allowed to vote according to their own 
consciences instead of by SG order, it is possible that one could have a 2/3 
supermajority of both houses but still not reach supermajority.  

a.



On 8 Apr 2010, at 10:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

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