Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
Hi, Thanks for the explanation.In Jon's model, as I understand it both chambers as 4,4,1 whereas in Steve's model it can vary - each chamber is really free to do why it feels necessary. I have tried to put what I understand into a spreadsheet of the way percentages would work within each chamber if the stakeholder groups were free to pick their own number of votes in each chamber. thanks a. Attachment:
2chamber-percent.xls On 18 Jul 2008, at 00:34, Milton L Mueller wrote: Steve's approach is an improvement. Avri, here is how I understand it.Let's say the contracting parties have 3 Ry and 3 Rr votes (and one Nomcom), and the users have 6 and 6 (and one Nomcom). (This proposal will create debates about the size of the Council "houses," by the way.)We sit and deliberate together and when it comes time to vote, any proposal that gets 4 votes from the contracting party side has a majority, any proposal that gets 7 votes from the user side has a majority. Or, if a 2/3 is needed, any proposal that gets 5 votes from contracting parties and 9 votes from users is a supermajority. In theory, it doesn't matter how big either house is, although for practical reasons we should keep them as small as possible.To accept this proposal I would also strongly advocate that the Nomcom select GNSO Council chairs. I can't make any sense of Alan's opposition to this, it contradicts everything the Nomcom advocates have said on this WG. If "independence" is the prime characteristic and value of Nomcom appointees, there is no position where independence is more needed than in the chair.--MM
|