RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept

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

Avri,

I do not understand the examples in the spreadsheet. Do the various
models stand for proposals that have been put forward or are they
hypothetical models?   Are they all supposed to represent variations of
the bicameral approach?  Are the SG's in each model for just one house?
The user house?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:10 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 
>