<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
- To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:13:55 -0700
- Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.14.8
Is a CIF created simply by submitting a request/application, or is there
other criteria? Also, the SC members, upon full consensus, should be
able to bar disruptive observers.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the
compositon of the OSC
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, October 10, 2008 5:27 pm
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If we went this direction, then pending constituencies could participate
without voting until such time that they were approved as a constituency
and then they could vote. That doesn't sound bad to me.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on
> the compositon of the OSC
>
>
>
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 12:02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > I am hoping there will be more discussion like this and to
> encourage
> > it even more, I second the motion for the amendment.
>
> thanks.
>
> > We will probably have to define 'full consensus' more
> precisely. Would
> > 'observers' be included in full consensus? If so, then what is the
> > difference between being a regular member and an observer?
>
> I have always assumed it was full consensus of members not
> including other participants. for example wile the comments
> of staff are always highly valued, I did not assume they were
> figuring into the consensus decisions. they are list among
> other participants. Note: this is different then in the
> planing team where staff are members of the team due to the
> nature of the Board's mandate to staff and council.
>
> If necessary for clarity we could amend the two instances of:
>
> Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members,
> committee decisions
> will be made using a "full consensus" process.
>
> to
>
> Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members,
> committee decisions
> will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process.
>
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|