RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] from the "creative solutions" department part 2

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please see a few responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:31 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] from the "creative solutions"
department part 2
        
        
        If we are being creative.
         
        1. Users versus registrants ?
        I understand the terminology but do not understand the
difference with respect to GNSO policy. 
        I do not sure discussing a difference is helpful.
        Certainly the joint users proposal was specifically called just
that. Acknowledging that the commercial and the non-commercial groups
would BOTH include users, registrants and individuals.
         
        2. Future role of nom com
        It is difficult to discuss nom com without understanding what we
want them to achieve and how that would be done. Specifically I do not
understand the tie-break philosophy at all.  In what way do delegates
(who are users) have any standing to tie break between users and
contract parties? (This get even odder once we realise that nom com are
appointed by by a body dominated by At large and we have an ambition to
have At Large within a GNSO group who would then subject to the
tie-break.)
        [Gomes, Chuck] The key in my opinion for the NomCom reps is that
they are selected independently based on certain criteria.  We may want
to focus on the criteria while still encourage independent selection.  
         
        (Following Milton's suggestion of insider representation in the
R & Rs, maybe this would be the place for two nom com reps with a brief
to understand the R & Rs perspective but from the viewpoint of a neutral
observer?)
         
        3. Voting
        I find the idea of separate voting thresholds for all matters
not related to consensus policy helpful. Lets pursue this thinking.
        Practically, it simply means we apply the highest threshold for
consensus policy and lower thresholds elsewhere.
        [Gomes, Chuck] What other voting issues are we talking about
besides elections? 
         
        Philip