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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to Milton's principles.

In detail:  Expert[s] advise Board, Board approves/deny application.  Board
may ignore or accept advice as they see fit.  Simple majority vote required
to approve; supermajority required to deny an application that meets all the
criteria save and except some pesky objection.

Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>