RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Can we please dispense with the personal attacks?  The "I'm sure you would." 
was unnecessary and inappropriate, and, frankly, I'm tired of having you attack 
me. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:25 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5


> -----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 appropriate.

Right. 

> 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. 

>