RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

The text below in Jon's email was the compromise to my mind. I hope
we're not reopening this now!
 
Tony

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: 25 July 2008 21:55
To: Milton L Mueller; Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC



Milton:  I thought that the provision that is in the draft was a
compromise majority provision.  If not, we shouldn't characterize it as
such.  Jon

 

        a.      One GNSO Council Chair - elected by 60% of both houses.
If no one is elected Chair, the Council-level Nominating Committee
Appointee shall serve as a non-voting Chair of Council 

 

 

________________________________

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:45 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC

 

response to jon from mm

-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Nevett, Jonathon
>
>Just three initial points:
>
>1.     I don't think that anyone suggested deleting as moot 4.g
>(Removal of NomCom Appointees), but rather 4.d (Appointing a Task
>Force).
>
>2.     I don't want to speak for others, but I don't think that
>everyone signed off on the process/threshold/default on the election of
>GNSO Chair.

We didn't sign off, preferred to have Nomcom directly appoint the chair,
but also did not view this as a deal-killer if it is the only remaining
obstacle. I am a bit confused by Jon's comment below as to which he
considers the majority and which the minority position.

> I think that enough of us agreed to it that it should be in
>the draft (and it sounds like that it is a condition for Avri to
approve
>the package), but it should be noted that there was a minority
viewpoint
>that had concerns, but that it wasn't a deal killer issue for them.

>3.     I would suggest deleting Principle C (Each House will determine
>its own total number of seats) as it is no longer relevant.  In the

I agree

--MM