RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
- To: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
- From: "Brian Cute" <briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:37:57 -0500
Please confirm if this email was received on list. Thank you.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:38 AM
Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
Le 25 févr. 2010 à 16:36, Brian Cute a écrit :
> Collecting comments as we speak. Should be able to offer a reaction
> shortly. Apologies for missing the deadline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:32 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
> Yes, we seem to have a deadlock situation right now with the NCSG and the
> RrSG supporting the Milton/Avri Obj 5 and the BC and the IPC supporting
> Kristina Obj 5.
> This could be resolved by the RySG coming out in support of one version or
> the other, but it's now past deadline and there hasn't been a reaction
> the registries.
> Brian, could you let us know which version the registries support please?
> I would then suggest we move ahead as we had planned to: the majority
> it. I would also suggest, as this is pretty evenly split up, that a not be
> included in the charter explaining which version of obj 5 was supported by
> whom. This could then be sent back to Council as-is, and for them to make
> final determination.
> Margie, were you able to act on Avri's earlier proposal to bring the
> proposed agenda inline with recent developments? Do you have a definitive
> version of the charter that I can take back to the Council?
> Le 25 févr. 2010 à 15:48, Avri Doria a écrit :
>> so how do we resolve this split in the consensus?
>> does the council vote on the version of Objective 5 they like best?
>> or does the charter linger in the DT until we reach a consensus?
>> if the later, who can suggest a compromise wording?