There has been no prior compromise about the 2/3 rejection threshold. el On 2016-02-04 08:27, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
Dear James
I understand your point.
However, rec11 has been reopened at the gnso's behest in the ccwg.
I guess that GAC colleagues would need to know what exactly is needed/suggested by the part of the community (gnso) who is trying to change a prior compromise which directly affects our part (gac).
Without that a meaningful debate is quite difficult, especially when you are talking about govts and a large group of them working on a full consensus rule.
best Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 04.02.2016 um 07:20 schrieb James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
I obviously do not speak for the GNSO but I think that the Becky/Kavouss discussions are gaining much traction and may be acceptable to the GNSO. But like yourself we are in the situation of having to consult with our own very diverse stakeholders and constituents, so if it feels like the GNSO has not agreed a position that you can take to yours its because of exactly the same reason, we cannot come out in support of a single proposal until have confirmed that it is understood and accepted by our own memberships. And given that some constituencies are very large (Not just my own) that can take a few days to confirm.
-James [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/