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

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

Philip,

Thanks for the input.  Could you please clarify a few points as
requested below.

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 2:11 AM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon
> Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> 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

CG: I believe that this applied except for a supermajority vote; does
the BC agree with that?

> 2. Binding policy should have the support of 3 of the 4 SGs (ie 
> status quo) 

CG: By this do you mean 'should have at least one vote of support from 3
of the 4 SGs?  I believe that is what we discussed yesterday.

>3. Each House will determine its own representation 

CG: If my memory is correct, there were at least two members of our
group who expressed the viewpoint that we need to determine the numbers
before we can finalize the overall proposal.  If we accept that
position, then it seems to me that the houses would need to determine
its own representation by tomorrow.  If so, is that feasible?

> 
> 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

CG: I have the same questions about this that Avri already asked.

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