RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Theoretical options v3

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

I have attempted to add, as option 17 (?!), the arithmetical split
between the BGC proposal and the Joint Users Proposal, as I put forward
several days ago.  

Steve Metalitz

  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:02 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Theoretical options v3

At 10/07/2008 05:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 10 Jul 2008, at 09:30, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>>My thanks to Alan for correcting me on simple majorities and the typo.
>>I attach a corrected version incorporating NCUC position stated by 
>>Milton.
>>
>>Philip
>>
>><GNSO reform options 2008v2.xls>
>
>interesting chart.
>
>i added a chart at the bottom that showed the percentages - kept the 
>coloring for MM's unacceptables, but not adding any other color
shading.
>
>a.

And I have added the number of votes that it takes to defeat a motion.
Particularly interesting is whether a particular constituency (or group
of them) can effectively veto a motion.

Alan

Attachment: GNSO reform options 2008v2-percent-ag with sjm (1893025).XLS
Description: GNSO reform options 2008v2-percent-ag with sjm (1893025).XLS