Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Some Thoughts on the Bicameral Model

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

i am not sure, going back and reading the larger complete message from  
which these snippets were taken that the context for all of these  
statements is exactly as it was when they were first written.  i.e. i  
think the context is just a bit skewed.
a.

On 22 Jul 2008, at 01:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> [Gomes, Chuck] Please clarify.  Are the two of you saying simply  
> that we need to agree on the numbers of reps for each house now even  
> if the numbers are different for the two houses or are you saying  
> that the numbers of the two houses have to be the same?  I am fine  
> with the former, but  I don't see why the numbers need to be the  
> same as long as voting thresholds are set in a way that always  
> involves a specified level of support from each house.
> MM: I am saying the former (we need to agree on numbers now but the  
> numbers can be different)
> JN:  Proportionality of NomCom rep voting power is inextricably  
> intertwined with the voting thresholds.  To argue one without the  
> other is premature.
> MM: Agreed. My point was that NomCom is not a constituency but some  
> kind of independent force which might tip a threshold or overcome  
> deadlocks among constituencies.
> JN:  Considering the new mission of Council, we should be reducing  
> its size not increasing it.
> MM: sometimes I’d like for the number to be zero. Strike that from  
> the record, your honor.
> [Gomes, Chuck] My main point is that I believe it is quite valuable  
> to have a very small leadership group.  How would they be  
> appointed?  It seems like house elections would be an easy way to do  
> this but I am not locked into that.
> MM: I tend to fear small leadership groups; if they get locked in  
> they can have too much control over the entire Council
>
> MM I prefer the idea of just having the two houses elect a rep, but  
> am flexible on this issue/
> JN:  I agree with Chuck, though we need to figure out a way to  
> ensure voting parity if the two houses aren’t the same size.  With  
> that said, I am open to more discussion on the merits of each house  
> electing a Director if folks feel strongly about it.
> MM: The problem of parity is why I think you have to have each house  
> elect their own director. Again, the beauty of the two house  
> proposal is that it moves us beyond those voting parity issues on a  
> number of relevant fronts.