Great questions @WinVerse! When it comes to the length of a suspension or issuing a permeant ban from the Delegate Incentive Program, that decision remains up to the program administrator. Say for example a delegate repeatedly fails to disclose a conflict of interest. The program administrator of the DIP may decide that the delegate is failing to meet the eligibility requirements of the program and should be suspended for 12 months (this number was arbitrarily chosen as an example). The delegate would have the ability to appeal this decision to the DAO, arguing for example the punishment is excessive (should be say 6 months) or their actions do not warrant a suspension at all. This would be a one-time appeal by the delegate, and the results from the vote would be final.
As it is written currently, an individual/entity who is forcibly removed from a DAO-elected position is not suspended or banned from the DAO. We imagine that if an elected representative refuses to resign and has to be removed through a vote, it would be unlikely for them to be elected to another position of power. However, if that individual/entity is also a delegate participating in the DIP, the program administrator has the right to suspend/ban them based on the severity of their actions.
The 3% of all votable tokens quorum comes from the Arbitrum Constitution and is the requirement for a non-constitutional proposal to pass onchain. Temperature checks technically don’t have a quorum requirement as stated in the Constitution, but Entropy has made it standard practice to include this threshold in our proposals.