RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Philip this is a very good attempt. 
NCUC strongly favors a Nomcom-selected, voting chair, but could probably
live with the solution you propose as it is silent on the topic and
there does not seem to be agreement on it even among the registries now.

I agree with you that it would be a shame if Avri blocked agreement on
this; as I have noted before the concept of a "voice of the Nomcom" (her
words) is clearly an Oxymoron and inconsistent with the "independence"
rationale for Nomcom appointees. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:58 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus
> 
> 
> 
> Avri, your tenancity to 3 nom com defies all logic.
> 
> Today here are 3 to tie break the current structure.
> Tomorrow there may be a number X to tie break that structure.
> 
> Whats more to my knowledge the first time I have ever heard public
> interest mentiond by you or any nom com ever is when I started using
the
> phrase.
> Never has a nom com delegate said "I have considered the public
interest
> and  believe I must vote ths way" - perhaps they all thought it every
GNSO
> vote but I fear not. Many told me otherwise.
> 
> Contrarily we are proposing at large - the voice of public interest
(if
> not what is it and why does it exist? and if it is not that voice lets
> scrap it and find something that is) - inside the camp so all is not
lost.
> 
> Philip