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

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

Philip,

To what are you referring when you say 'veto re bindig policy'? I have
consistently been opposed to any one SG being able to veto an action,
including a binding policy.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:18 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; Nevett, Jonathon; 
> gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> >
> 
> 
>