RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs
- To: "gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:35:23 -0400
Agreed, Jon. And if Houses know that a default will be put in place, perhaps
they will find it a little easier to agree. ;-)
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:57 AM
To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs
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.
----- 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
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