YES If you AGREE with the proposed challenge1 to overturn the retypification, and NOT TO ACCEPT the replacement of the African type (Acacia nilotica) with an Australian one (Acacia penninervis), i.e., you agree that the name Acacia should be kept for the tropical African, American and Asian true acacias.
NO If you DO NOT AGREE with the proposed challenge to overturn the retypification, and you ACCEPT the replacement of the African type (Acacia nilotica) with an Australian one (Acacia penninervis), i.e., you agree that the tropical African, American and Asian true acacias will no longer be called Acacia.

1 Technically, the challenge will be phrased in terms of rejecting the Acacia listing (below) at the next International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Melbourne in 2011.

"Acacia Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4: [25]: 28 Jan 1754. [Legum.]. Typus: A. penninervis Sieber ex DC. (typ. cons.)." International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna, 2006).

By voting YES, you regard the inclusion in the Vienna Code (2006) of this Acacia listing to be inconsistent with the Nomenclature Section's rules adopted in Vienna. It is inconsistent because the sudden introduction of the 60% majority vote requirement to overturn the retypification proposal did not comply with standard operating voting procedures (i.e., the need for a 60% majority to change the Code and a simple 50% majority for all other matters). As a result the Acacia listing in the Vienna Code should be abandoned and not included in the code to be published after the Melbourne IBC.