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

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

I think that sounds okay to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:03 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and 
> vice chairs
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 May 2009, at 19:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >
> > I actually am relatively optimistic that we will usually be able to 
> > achieve the '60% of both houses' threshold.  As Philip pointed out, 
> > the Council has been successful electing chairs for 10 
> years.  Granted 
> > that the voting thresholds will be different but it still should be 
> > generally possible to identify a candidate who has 
> sufficient support.
> 
> 
> I think so too, it is just that there has to be a fall back.
> 
> So are people in agreement  with:
> 
> 60% of each house
> with  rounds of voting if there are more then  2 candidates 
> ballot includes none of the above option
> 
> 
> if no candidate gets 60% positive from both houses after all 
> rounds are complete.
> then v-chairs become acting co-chairs, and another election 
> is held 4 months later.
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> BTW, in regard to:
> 
> > But there are times when we disagree and in those instances 
> I usually 
> > just defer to her as the chair.
> 
> this can be solved by giving each of the co-chairs, the tie 
> breaker in those cases, in alternate months:
> 
> flip a coin to see which one get it the first month, then alternate.
> 
> a.
> 
>