Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

This is also one of the pending work items we have been given by the  
Board, i.e.after the WG, they asked us to consider how we would handle  
the inability to elect a chair by 60% of both houses.
a.

On 15 May 2009, at 12:56, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> If the houses don't agree on a Chair, we would prefer a default  
> Chair to no Chair. It would be a mistake not to consider what  
> happens if 60 percent vote of both houses is not achieved.  Philip's  
> proposal is organizationally dangerous.  Thanks.  Jon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-restruc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri May 15 03:23:39 2009
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs
>
>
>
> Lets keep this simple.
>
> "GNSO Council Chair - elected by 60% of both houses".
> "Vice Chair elected by each House"
>
> And no reference to what if we cant agree. We always have in the  
> last 10 years.
> Lets not second guess defaults and end up with a poor chair just  
> because of a default.
> --------------------------------------
>
> PS would colleagues consider spending 2 seconds of their time before  
> hitting "reply to all"
> to delete duplicate names before sending e-mails? This is both  
> recipient friendly and
> environmentally friendly.