RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] out of scope PDP

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

I could live with that Philip.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:44 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] out of scope PDP
> 
> 
> Chuck, please find a propoal that does not conflcit with the 
> no veto principle (removals excepted) and you will have 
> support. Why not the same as our new supermajority rule ?
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> > Thanks Jon.  I would like to see responses to my suggestion for 
> > initiating an out-of-scope PDP.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >     On 4c, it seems that we are lowering the threshold of 
> initiating an 
> > out-of-scope PDP.  Why would we do that?  A legitimate 
> question from 
> > the RyC is why we would ever even consider initiating a PDP that is 
> > out of scope so it would be our ideal position that we 
> never do it.  
> > But recognizing that others may not accept that and being 
> aware of the 
> > very late hour in our process, I would suggest that we make this 
> > threshold
> > 2/3 of both houses.  Is there any opposition to that?
> >
> >
> 
>