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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the past week or so I have definitely supported this several times:
"report on the areas of unanimity and list those where one or more
disagreed saying 
which party disagreed."

Thanks Philip for clarifying the BC position but I do have one question
for the entire group.  I don't recall us ever agreeing to "a third 
voting nom com appointee" as part of the final package.  Am I incorrect
on that?  There was support for "a third 
non-voting nom com appointee" that was also linked to the selection of
chair.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:06 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> i was unable to connect for most of yesterday.
> Sorry if I seem to have introduced a new problem I thought I 
> was being clear as to what the BC position had aways been.
> 
> I also thought we agreed that we would report on the areas of 
> unanimity and list those where one or more disagreed saying 
> which party disagreed.
> And the issues would be considered later.
> What is wrong with that ?
> 
> We were not requested by the Board to produce a fully 
> detailed proposal just a consensus structure - we have done 
> that with great success. And in greater detail than the BGC 
> managed in months !
> 
> For clarity:
> BC can not agree to a GNSO chair appointed by nom com.
> BC is happy to being listed as a minority objector to a third 
> voting nom com appointee.
> BC is happy to being listed as a minority objector to a third 
> non-voting nom com appointee.
> 
> These were red lines agreed in consultation and I cannot 
> change with out reference back to our membership.
> 
> Philip
> 
> PS I do not see a need to reply to our own constituency stateent.
> 
> 
>