Joop's latest post (snipped below with "minor injections") made me wonder where we stood on the issue of super-majority votes for certain kinds of actions. Has this been hashed out? Joop Teernstra wrote: > > SHOULD ANY AND ALL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF A DNSO REQUIRE > A <super> MAJORITY VOTE OF <any> THE GENERAL OR AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP > BEFORE ENACTMENT AND SUBMISSION TO THE ICANN? > > [X] YES > [ ] NO > > SHOULD ANY POLICY DECISIONS OF CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ICANN > BE SUBJECT TO <super> MAJORITY VOTE BY THE GENERAL OR AT LARGE > MEMBERSHIP [BY MAJORITY VOTE?] BEFORE ENACTMENT? > > [X] YES > [ ] NO > __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
