[arin-discuss] No quorum in last election

[J Bacher]

Mike Lieberman wrote:

> As "participation" is more than an "invitation to participate", Dean, no
> matter whether you like him or not, is making a reasonable argument. The
> question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how
> many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as
> stated in the by-laws? 

Straw man.

> The argument that while the word quorum is stated, the definition is not
> stated, is fallacious. The word has meaning and so one is forced to look at
> other places with-in the document for meaning and if finding none, one looks
> at the enabling legislation. In this case, it would appear that 10%
> constitutes a quorum, and it would appear that since email ballots are
> permitted, they should be included in the count of a valid quorum. Given
> those assumptions, can the board state if a quorum was present?

Dean has chosen to re-define "abstain".  I'd like to see it.