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

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

That's my take as well

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 25 July 2008 16:44
To: Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft


Philip's message did not call for the elimination of the 3rd Nomcom
appointee, it is simply a disagreement about whether the Nomcom Council
appointee is the default chair if no other candidate can be agreed on. 

> -----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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >