The "von Bergen" naming action closed at epoch 651: DReps 61.3% yes of eligible power, SPOs 9.0%, and the Constitutional Committee 0%, from three no, one abstain and three who did not vote.
The three no votes all give the same reason. Ace Alliance, Cardano Japan Council and Eastern Cardano Council each find the action unconstitutional under Article II.6(1), because the metadata sits at a plain HTTPS URL rather than a content addressed one. All three say explicitly that this is a finding about format and not about the naming. Tingvard abstained on a different basis: it does not judge an info action at all, because the action has no ledger effect.
So two committee members published opposite readings of their own mandate on the same action.
The rules do not settle it either. Article III.1(4) says the committee votes on constitutionality "including any proposed or contemplated actions contained within "Info" actions". The ledger sets no threshold for info actions at all, they can never be ratified and always expire. And the one guardrail that asks anything of an info action, TREASURY-01a for the Net Change Limit, asks it of the DReps alone.
There is precedent for that last reading. Three info actions propose a Net Change Limit for epochs 613 to 713:
| Net Change Limit | Closed | DRep yes | CC yes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 350M ada | epoch 612 | 61.3% | 57.1%, 4 of 7, below the two thirds |
| 300M ada | epoch 618 | 44.1% | 85.7% |
| 500M ada | epoch 647 | 62.4% | 83.3% |
The 350M limit is the one that has been treated as in force, even though its committee share sits below the quorum the committee needs everywhere else. The later 500M action calls it "the existing 350,000,000 ada Net Change Limit for Epochs 613-713" in its own motivation, and the chain agrees: enacted withdrawals in the period passed 300M ada in epoch 645, so the 300M action, the one with the comfortable CC majority, cannot have been the operative limit. The committee then voted those withdrawals constitutional as they came.
So what is a CC vote on an info action worth? A finding the committee owes on everything, an advisory signal with no standing, or something it can decline outright? I do not think the community has settled on one.