Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For your review - updated public comment review tool

[Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,
++1
I'm following-up ...
Cheers !
-Olévié-



2015-05-01 17:19 GMT+00:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>  Greg,
>
>
>
> In saying a 'simple majority of the Council'  I mean the following: "the
> default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action
> requires a simple majority vote of each House".
>
>
>
> Regarding your second point, that was essentially the point I was trying
> to make in my response to Anne.  If a simple majority of each House does
> not think a GGP should continue, what are the chances that the GGP will
> ever produce recommendations that a supermajority would support?  I am
> presuming of course that in considering whether to terminate a GGP the
> Council would try to determine whether there are reasonable chances for the
> GGP to reach a high enough level of consensus to gain supermajority support
> in the GNSO.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 10:58 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For your review - updated public
> comment review tool
>
>
>
> Unless we are abandoning the usual voting model for the GNSO Council,
> there's really no such thing as a simple majority of the Council, due to
> the House system.
>
>
>
> I don't think the issue is one of whether it is productive.  I think the
> issue is one where a GGP may not be turning out the way some thought it
> would.  Of course, that begs the question of how the output of the GGP will
> ever get approved by the Council once it's finished....
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Action for all:  Please try to review the entire updated review tool by
> the deadline below and see if you have any remaining concerns because staff
> will be using it to create the final report.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 4:56 PM
> *To:* gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - updated public comment
> review tool
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached for your review the updated public comment review
> tool that should reflect today's discussion. If you have any comments or
> edits please share those with the list.
>
>
>
> Anne and Carlos, please note that there are a couple of specific items
> that the WG is looking for your input on (Anne, see comment Q12.5, Carlos
> see comments Q14.3 and G.1). Your feedback would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Note that everyone is encouraged to share any and all comments, questions
> or additional issues that require further conversation by the WG by *Monday
> 4 May at 23:59 UTC at the latest*. Based on the input provided, the
> Chairs will decide on Tuesday whether or not a WG meeting is needed next
> Wednesday as staff will require some additional time before a next draft of
> the report is produced (target date 13 May).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>



-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable du Projet CERGI Education
Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl
SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (
http://www.estetic.tg)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society (
www.isoc.org)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo