ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

  • To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
  • From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:10:37 +0200 (CEST)


Thanks for this summary which seems to add some detail we did not close on.

Lets not forget our agreed principles to test these number against

1. No 1 of the 4 SGs should have a veto for any vote
2. Binding policy should have the support of 3 of the 4 SGs (ie status quo)
3. Each House will determine its own representation


Thus given the above there are too many specifics on the Jon N summary.

Also, the BC does not support an imposed non com chair - we prefer an
elected chair with majority of both houses

The BC can probably support two elected vice chairs one per house

Philip






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy