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

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

We we can make that work Philip, it might be okay.  I do agree as I said
on Thursday that there is no way we can fill in all the details in less
than a week and therefore need to focus on high level principles, but
there may be few details that are critical before some will be willing
to support the model.  I will spend a little time on thinking this
through and try to submit some thoughts that might help us.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
> 
> 
> 
> A suggestion.
> 
> We have no time to refine the bicameral proposal to be 
> perfect. There is an way an overlap with the new work on the 
> PDP. In our remaining time lets delete the bit on PDP 
> thresholds and simple add in the principles we want addresed 
> if the Board goes with the basic idea of the bi cameral.
> 
> Principles may include:
> - the voting strucure for policy should not provide any one 
> consituency a veto.
> - the voting stucture for binding policy must ....
> - etc
> 
> Our job done - then a new group to work through the details.
> Philip
> 
> 
>