RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

Jon/Avri

The ISPs also have issues over the chair election but as I stated
earlier we don't see that as a reason not to support the overall
approach. A 30 day window as suggested by Chuck would enable this to be
resolved one way or the other. The Board may also come to their own
conclusion of course.

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: 25 July 2008 17:02
To: Avri Doria; Milton L Mueller
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant


Avri:

Philip's position on the Chair election appears to be a minority one.
Under the draft, the "homeless" NomCom rep either will be a Vice Chair
or Chair of Council.  The BC's minority position is no reason not to
support the draft, unless you are looking for one.

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] User/Non-Contracted Party vs Registrant


hi,

As i said, i am not on board with a  proposal for only 2 nomcom
appointees.  and i am not sure how we will react to the addition of a
homeless non voting nomcom appointee without a role - body count is one
thing, but having a fully participatory voice is another.  the
requirement for full participation as required by the by-laws may be met
in several ways, but i am afraid i just do not see it happening as
things stand now.

We were still considering it until Phillip's statement showed up.

a.

On 25 Jul 2008, at 17:49, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Good to know you're on Board with the consensus statement, Avri.
> Presumably Alan is, too? So, can we add a principle on the 
> user/registrant distinction in the short time remaining to us?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Gee, i thought people were still trying to reach consensus.
>>
>