Re: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 15:28 26/03/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>The discussion, recall, started from someone's mistaken claim that
>three votes passed a historic law in the US.  It was pointed out that
>the USG procedures define a quorum which make it impossible for such a
>thing to happen.  I said that the GA does not have such a rule, but I
>did not express it clearly.  We have rules, indeed, but we don't have a
>rule like that (with exception to the case when it is the voting rules
>themselves which are being voted on).

the important point is that when we have a rule, and you think that this 
rule is not the right one, the Right Thing is to lobby for changing the rule.

I have not yet seen anyone propose that the GA adopt a minimum quorum for 
resolutions (I personally think this would not be helpful, btw).

                Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html