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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

I agree.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:52 AM
To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] out of scope PDP


75% of one house and simple majority of the other is fine with me.
Thanks.  Jon

-----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?
>
>