RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: ALL not "Most"
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: ALL not "Most"
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:26:11 -0400
Who is chairing the meeting tomorrow and what is the agenda?
Also, based on the back and forth that I've seen so far, we may want to
discuss whether it makes sense to employ the use of a professional
mediator to help facilitate the discussions if we ever do have a
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:36 AM
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: ALL not "Most"
On 3 Jul 2008, at 12:09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> We can make it as political as we want, or not.
I tend to think we cannot avoid this discussion being political - we
are dealing with the balance between competing political interests.
That seems to me to be essentially a political debate.
I also think the process of building consensus for political
compromise perforce requires a great deal creativity.
So while I don't think we can pretend that this is not a political
process, i also think that trying to be creative in our solution
exploration might be necessary.
Though i am at a loss at the moment to understand what bit of
creativity is going to get us beyond the dichotomies and competing
imperatives we face.