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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whatever solution we find, it must make electing a chair a certainty. We
cannot leave ourselves open to situations where we would be left chairless.
So if we have strong feelings that the 60% threshold may in practice prove
unworkable, we should find an alternative solution and include it in our
proposal to the board.

If the 60% threshold was decided upon only in an attempt to make sure that
the chair has overwhelming support in both houses, then maybe we can
envisage dropping that down to 50%. But would that really solve anything?

Stéphane


Le 15/05/09 13:40, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am not favoring any particular solution.
> 
> Perhaps your suggestion, if you can't get 60% , then try 50%  in both
> is ok.
> 
> But then I ask, why try 60% in the first place?  If we are willing to
> settle for 50% why try for 60%.
> 
> Another possibility might be that the 2 v-chairs share the job until
> you someone gets the 60%.
> 
> Or maybe the backup would be a staff member asked to coordinate until
> such time as someone was successfully elected.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> On 15 May 2009, at 13:22, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I am confused by our logic here.
>> 
>> The reason for a 60% of both House threshold it to get a chair that
>> has popular support.
>> The alternative is a majority vote system that always produces a
>> result eventually.
>> 
>> What is the logic then in saying if we fail to get popular support
>> we should accept a chair
>> imposed upon us who be definition has zero support?
>> 
>> Either we pursue a system of popular support or we do not.
>> 
>> Philip
>> 
>> 
>