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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The fact that both houses have veto power may be the key to keeping
a stalemate from occurring. I wouldn't want a lower threshold or
leave it that one house can dig in their heels and force the default. 

Why not leave it as Philip suggests and we deal with it when
and if it does turn out to be a problem.

If everyone agrees that there should be a default, then I would
prefer that the default be that the Vice Chairs serve as Co-Chairs
for that term.

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice
chairs
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, May 15, 2009 8:00 am
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@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
>> 
>> 
>