Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion at today's meeting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Steve:

I assume that your proposal means that each of the nomcom appointee  
would only be worth half a vote?  Half  the vote of any of the council  
members?
BTW, I had been assured by several members of the Joint 'Users' (never  
understood why i wasn't the joint registrant)  that there had been  
_no_ intention to disenfranchise the nomcom appointees in their  
original proposal.  I assume you differ wit this assessment.
While I had not decided whether I supported Milton's proposal yet,  
though it did not represent parity it at least had the virtue of  
allowing the possibility that the outside voices of the Nomcom could  
vote with the Registrars and Registries to overcome a unified majority  
of the registrant community.  Your modification of that proposal  
leaves a controlling majority in the hands of the registrants.
a.



On 5 Jul 2008, at 22:55, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> See attached suggested modification of Milton's document.  Thanks to  
> Milton for putting a concrete proposal on the table.
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> ] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:01 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Proposal for discussion at today's  
> meeting
> See attached document. It is entitled “The Compromise Parity Proposal”
> <Compromise parity proposal v.2 (Compromise parity proposal).doc>