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

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

Thanks Antony for giving your view on this, but I would like to point
out that there have been those who have suggested requiring a higher
threshold on approvals of applications as well.  At present I believe we
have some divergence on this.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:antonyvc@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:45 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> I agree with Milton and furthermore it was my impression that we had
> converged on either:
> 
> 1. It would take a supermajority of the Board to veto an application
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. It would take a plain majority of the Board to veto an application.
> 
> There was discussion of how big the supermajority would be, if there
> was one.
> 
> At no point (from memory) did we discuss that the Board would need to
> vote to approve an application.   Clearly, approval would be the
> presumption absent some reason to disapprove.   So the supermajority
> (or majority) would be to DISapprove the application.
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck 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.
> >
> >