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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

ok, if everyone thinks this is sufficient including for the resolution of a 
PDP, then I guess I am wrong to be concerned.

never mind.

a.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 10:57, Margie Milam wrote:

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