<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Voting to go counter to previous policy was Re: [] Re: Letter ....
That is why I originally raised the question of what voting threshold
would we use.
Marika was correct in that the current rules do not mention this kind
of vote. Not surprising because we have never really had this kind of
vote before and we did not contemplate such a possibility when
drafting the rules on thresholds (for those not present, translating
the old Council thresholds to those for a bicameral Council involved
a LOT of thought and some vigorous debate, but this particular
question was just not considered).
I do not believe that it is really important in the current case. The
original New gTLD Policy was not a Consensus Policy (ie altering
existing contracts) and so did not require a super-majority to have
the force of law.
However, if we were to do another such "change" to policy, and that
policy was a Consensus Policy, I strongly believe that a
super-majority should be required to alter it, and the rules (and in
fact the Bylaws) should be changed to reflect this.
Alan
At 16/05/2014 09:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Change subject.
This discussion has gotten me thinking about the future and the whole
notion of voting to accept a deviation from PDP policy recommendations.
I know we said it wasn't a precedent, but having done it once, there is
no reason to expect that it can't happen again, unless we make a rule
against it, which I do not expect us to do.
In retrospect it seems odd to me that a PDP policy that was approved by
a super-majority, could be exempted by a majority. Is this a voting
practice we wish to endorse for the future?
Perhaps this is an issue that should be discussed futher and might even
be an issue for the SCI to chew on for a spell. As this practice of the
Board checking back with us becomes regularized, something I hope
continues, we need to refine our processes to work with this. We are
already working on ideas for accelerating non-PDP working group process
in several groups. We might also need to look at the voting thresholds
for such motions.
avri
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|