<<<
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
>>>
|