RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am wondering whether, in light of the revised way the "new" GNSO should
work, support from SGs is appropriate in a WG report.
This will come out, without any doubt, in the Council discussion, but one of
the things we were trying to do in the GNSO Review was to separate the
consensus processes in WGs from the votes in the Council.
 
Just my opinion.
Actually, this does not mean that the WG should not note support, but not
make it a matter of SGs.
 
Roberto
 
 
  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 17:50
To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx;
mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text



If so, support of NCSG members for SR/MU should be noted in the report. The
combination of CSG and NCSG indicates an important level of support among
GNSO user representatives, even if it does not constitute consensus. 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx

I also think that SRMU is a case we pretty much rejected as too difficult to
define without risking gaming and abuse. So the the emphasis should
definitely be on the SRSU.