Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Philip,

I think this is an unfair characterization.  While we have disagreed  
with you and other when you tried to reduce the number Nomcom  
participants, we have fully participated making suggestions and other  
contributions to try and bring this thing to a successful close and  
have even compromised and accepted, though with concern, the  
minimization of the participatory and voting role in the houses,  
especially in the maximalist NCP house with a possible 18:1 ratio.
I am saddened that you have broken the consensus and have decided to  
blame that on those who support nomcom appointee particpation -  
something which I still contend was not in scope for this group.
a.

On 26 Jul 2008, at 00:32, philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:

> Rob,you have done a good job with a difficult task.
>
> BC statement.
>
> 1. in this whole discussion there has been better dialogue and  
> consensus
> building beween the existing constituencies than with the non voting  
> ALAC
> and non com representative. This is significant. The constituencies  
> exisit
> as a result of 9 years of strucure and consensus building. ALAC and  
> nom
> com do not share this heritage. This should be noted.