Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

there was just a message from Philip that I understood was referring  
to there being on 2 NAs, one in each house.
that means the draft as put out by Jon, does not stand.  and while we  
were still considering all the conditions as they went flying by, the  
removal of the 3rd NA, is a deal breaker as far as I am my fellow NAs  
are concerned.  Even as it stands with one of them non-voting, we are  
concerned, but with only 2 there is no chance.
a.

On 25 Jul 2008, at 17:18, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> My understanding is that there would be three NomCom reps, one for  
> each
> house and a nonvoting appointee at the Council level.  Am I wrong?  If
> not, then are you saying Avri that you cannot support that?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:12 AM
> > To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft
> >
> >
> > i will not be able to support a consensus decision that has
> > only 2 nomcom reps.
> > no leeway on that today, just as there wasn't yesterday.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > Bc can support most of below wih exception of GNSO chair.
> > > >
> > > > The concept of default chair in case of disagreement is not needed.
> > > > Nom com shold serve council not the other way around.
> > > > We can only support GNSO chair elected from within GNSO.
> > > > (That may as today include the two nom com reps) Philip