[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: ] Fwd: [] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

On May 7, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> The change offers a footnote explain logical implications of the
> statements in the current consensus level guidelines

I agree. I can imagine other situations apart from what happened with the IGO/INGO WG creating a need for the added footnote. I support this change to the WG Guidelines.

> As for the Council reviewing the voting levels as soon as possible,
> while I am not going to object, from the council perspective I think
> this should be part of the review and that is soon enough.  Maybe I will
> recommend a change to the language on this.
> 
> comments?

I don?t mind the review of the decision-making levels being done on the SCI or the upcoming GNSO review. I can?t really come up with a reason why one would be preferable to the other, but I might be missing something. I?ve personally found the SCI to be pretty effective in making constructive recommendations. The full consensus rule helps. It also helps that the CSG appointees to the SCI don?t seem to be pushing for any sort of agenda (as far as I can tell).

Thanks.

Amr