<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
- To: <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:00:25 -0400
My understanding is that the At-Large is really not looking for a voting
seat in the GNSO because that might negatively impact the need for their
existence as an advisory body.
Alan - is my understanding correct?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:33 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> One option to compensate for the reduction in nom com would
> be an increase in at large.
>
> Philip
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|