[gnso-consensus-wg] Proposed Next Steps

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

Tony made a very important point in our meeting on 17 July and in a
subsequent email message.  I think he may have actually used the term
'the devil is in the details' to say in essence that certain information
about the bicameral model proposed by Jon is needed before
constituencies, NomCom reps and Advisory Committees can determine
whether they will be able to support that approach to GNSO voting
structure.  In that context, I would like to propose the following as a
way forward for our consensus group.

 

Suggested Next Steps for GNSO Voting Structure Consensus Group

 

1.      Identify what questions need to be answered for each group
participant and their constituents before they can decide whether they
are willing to support the bicameral model for GNSO voting structure.

        *       If at all possible, it would be very helpful if each
group participant could provide a list of these questions to the group
before the next meeting on Tuesday, hopefully with a little lead time so
that group members can review the questions in advance of the meeting.

2.      Use our meeting on Tuesday, 22 July, to:

        *       Attempt to come to agreement on the answers to all the
questions from 1; this could take the form of reaching consensus on key
principles as Philip suggested.  If some of the questions cannot be
answered in the form of a principle, we may have to agree on a little
more detail for those cases only.
        *       Develop a plan for writing a first draft of the proposal
to the Board.

3.      Use our final meeting on 24 July to finalize our report to the
Board.

There are clearly lots of 'ifs' in the above and we will have to deal
with them as we encounter them.
 

Chuck