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

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

On veto re bindig policy, that would be a new shift of power to the
contract parties that is NOT now the case. Why is it jusified ow ? wha has
chaned
>
>> 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.
PS ;correct

>
>>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?
PS Lets go for the rages option.I propose range of 661 - 991 for usershouse


>