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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps supermajority was a bad choice of word, in fact it was. All I
meant is that there is no consensus view of the registrars.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AW: [registrars] Re: RESULTS: Restart of balloting on
Domain Tasting, View 1 & View 2
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, February 09, 2008 10:51 am
To: Registrars Constituency <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;-}