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

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

Thanks Avri.  Your model d might be a very likely outcome and I would
not see that as a problem.

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 9:33 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
> 
> 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.
> 
>