ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: AW: [registrars] Re: RESULTS: Restart of balloting on Domain Tasting, View 1 & View 2

  • To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: AW: [registrars] Re: RESULTS: Restart of balloting on Domain Tasting, View 1 & View 2
  • From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:51:51 -0800
  • In-reply-to: <2254409.1202460114195.JavaMail.root@m08>
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <20080207071107.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.26459ea8e0.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <2254409.1202460114195.JavaMail.root@m08>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 09:36 AM 2/8/2008 Friday  +0100, Thomas Keller wrote:
> There is absolutely no need for determining a supermajority or analyzing the votes. 

Dear Thomas:  That was my point from the very beginning.  I kept asking "where is there a requirement for a supermajority?"  Paul asked for a definition.  All the occurrences that I could find in the ICANN By-Laws, that were for something greater than a simple majority, were for a two-thirds majority, so I guess two-thirds is an "ICANN supermajority".  

Certainly the RC has no requirement for more than a simple majority (with a quorum) to validate a vote on a motion.

Regards, BobC


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After all is said and done ---
A lot more gets said than done;-}
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>