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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

i will wait to see what shows up in the formal draft.

i am not looking for a way out.  i am looking to agree to something  
that the constituencies agree solves their issues with the exception  
of any attempt to remove a fully participatory 3 person nomcom from  
the mix.
it looked like Philip/BC was pulling out of the forming consensus (did  
not know we had minority positions) unless there were only 2 nomcom  
instead of 3.
if i am wrong and it turns out to be as you have written.  great.  i  
am in, if everyone else is.  if, on the other hand the proposal does  
not contain language supporting 3 fully participatory (for some  
definition of fully participatory that the NAs accept - one of whom is  
here in Meissen with me and the other is in communiction on line)  
nomcom appointees, then i am not.
i will be offline for a few hours now.  i have written two statements  
that can be attached to the report, one for if i am part of a  
consensus and one for if i am not.  i will send in the appropriate one  
before the deadline tonight.


a.

note: i usually remove all the cc, but since i am having email  
trouble, i am leaving them in.  apologies for the bad netiquette.


On 25 Jul 2008, at 18:02, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> 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.