RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

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

Thanks for clarifying Milton. So I think we may have divergence on that
part.  I encourage others to comment so we can determine whether we have
divergence on point 3 or not.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:07 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> I think you got this one incorrectly.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 3. A 2/3 majority would be required for a Board decision (pro or
> con).
> 
> What I proposed was 2/3 supermajority vote to uphold an objection.
> 
> What you've proposed above doesn't seem to work: a TLD that doesn't
get
> 2/3 pro or con would be in a no-man's land.
> It's either 2/3 to veto or 2/3 to approve.
> 
> I believe that if a TLD application meets all of the criteria required
> by the new gTLD policy (technical, business, etc.) then for a Rec 6
> objection to veto it the veto must get a 2/3 vote. Approval of the TLD
> should just require a majority.