RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
- To: "'Rosette, Kristina'" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:25:17 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> Given that DT membership/participation has been uneven
> (unequal?), a one member/one vote system does not seem
> For the same reason, using the Council voting
> thresshold also seems inappropriate.
A complete non sequitur. Precisely because the DT does not reflect GNSO
balances, and because there is no other known method for determining what
constitutes sufficient support for a charter to be put in place, we must revert
to the Council method.
And even if we don't, it could be passed at Council level. So we may as well
follow the Council procedure.
> I would prefer that it go to Council with both iterarations.
I'm sure you would. And we would prefer not to go back to Council with both
iterations, we would prefer that the DT actually perform its task. That just
leads to an infinite regress - how do we decide whether to go back with 2
iterations or not?
Anyway, let's see what the registries say before we have this debate. If they
support IPC's version of Obj 5 then we are indeed deadlocked and don't need to
have this debate.