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

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

Acceptable to me. --MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; philip.sheppard@xxxxxx;
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] out of scope PDP
> 
> 
> 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?
> >
> >
> 
> 
>