Malcolm, you are correct hat I did not address how abstentions would impact this. Mea Culpa. That being said, I would greatly appreciate NOT having personal slurs from you. If you cannot keep this at a civil level, please do not post. I happen to be VERY aware about how abstentions are treated, to the extent that I know that they are handled VERY differently in varying organizations and in fact at times within the same body. Alan At 19/12/2015 06:47 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Not at all. You are ignoring extensions. But then, you showed you didn't understand the concept of abstention when we discussed the Community Process.
On 19 Dec 2015, at 20:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I will try again. What I am saying is just a mathematical truth.
I a Bylaw says that to REJECT something (whether it is GAC Advice or a GNSO PDP Recommendation or where to go have dinner) at least 2/3 of the Board must reject. That is, 1/3 or less of the Board opt to accept. If the Board does NOT reject, then it means that less that 2/3 voted to reject. That is mathematically identical to greater than 1/3 accepts, sine the total must be 1.
Alan
At 19/12/2015 03:39 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alan I do not clearly understand your argument in saying " if a given issue required 2/3 majority to be rejected by the Board, then to accept the same issue, the Board requires 1/3 vote " There is no logic in that example? Regards Kavouss
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community