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

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

I must have missed that or misunderstood it.  We are at a point where it
would be very helpful for each of us to be as explicit as possible in
our messages to minimize any misunderstanding.

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 11:25 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>