RE: 5.a.1 Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

>BC supports Milton here - EITHER we want a bicameral approach with its
implication for separation (board, composition)or we do not.
Philip

-----------------
> Election of Board members by the entire Council has in fact been a way
> of ensuring that the Board member has been elected by half the group.
> Especially if Nomcom members vote, then you could elect a chair that 2
> of the 4 SGs strenuously oppose. Not acceptable. Indeed, it makes no
> sense to adopt the bicameral approach and then not use it when it does
> the best job of balancing the different interests.
>
> The entire history of GNSO Council Board elections should refute the
> pretense that a Board member elected by the Council is somehow of
> broader appeal and more accountable to the entire community.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
>> Also, I still believe that the Board representative should be elected
>> by the entire council and not just one of the chambers.  i think
>> making one chamber responsible for the nomination is a good
>> alternative, but i think ti weakens the Board member to have only been
>> elected by half the group.
>>
>>
>> a.
>
>