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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

they are a way at looking at what happens in various models within the  
bicameral system.  and a way to check my understanding.
If I understand Milton's explanation of Steve's variant of Jon's  
model, each of the chambers would decide on its own, how many  
representatives would vote within their chamber.  Except of course for  
the nomcom appointees that are restricted to one each.
So in Jon's basic model  (4,4,1) each Stakeholder Group (SG) would  
have 44% (4/9)% of the vote in their chamber and 22% of the total vote  
50-(4/9)% while each nomcom appointee would have 11.11% of the chamber  
and 5.56% of the whole.
The second model is what would happen if one of the chamber decided  
that each of the SGs had 6 votes  while nomcom remained 1 vote.  The  
we see that within that chamber the SG would have 46% of the vote and  
the nomcom appointee would have 7.59%.    They would also have a  
greater percentage of the total vote 23% while the nomcom appointee  
would go down to 3.85%.
Another unforeseen property of allowing each of the chambers to decide  
on SG percentage independently means that the nomcom  person in one  
chamber would have a greater voice then the nomcom person in another  
chamber.  How does one decide which nomcom appointee gets the lesser  
vote?
As I said, I am not passing judgement at this point, just trying to  
understand the numerical properties of the model.
An updated spread sheet with % total of the whole vote added.

Attachment: 2chamber-percent.xls
Description:

a.




On 18 Jul 2008, at 08:52, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.