RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] how to fit 3 NAs in the bicameral model

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

Interesting approach Avri.  I want to give this some more thought.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:41 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] how to fit 3 NAs in the bicameral model
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> The problem with how one splits 3 NA in the bicameral can 
> possibly be solved by:
> 
> - 1 in the 'contracted parties'  perhaps someone with a 
> technical background
> 
> - 2 in the non-contracted  one from the C and one from the NC 
> community.  this can work to offset the loss of voting 
> percentage that would occur if the number of non NA people in 
> the non-contracted chamber is > 8
> 
> i.e  if one chamber is 4,4,1 and the other is 8,8,2  then the 
> vote proportons are equal.
> 
> 
> In all cases these NAs should be outside people whose careers 
> are not involved in ICANN politics/policies.
> 
> Not saying i accept and understand the bicameral model yet, 
> but do think that accommodating the model to 3 NAs is essential.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
>