This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a solution which was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, and the proposed option 1 did that. There is majority support for this. Does it have to be unanimous support? Stéphane Le 15/10/09 09:32, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Hi, > > Since it does not appear that the 4 SGs managed to negotiate to a > common acceptable position on the placement of the NCA appointees, and > given that a week has passed since the meeting and the decision to > give the council a week to try and find another acceptable solution to > the lottery, I believe that we are now in the position of accepting > the results of the lottery and allowing the 3 NCAs to start > participating with their houses on the decisions concerning candidates > for the chair position. > > Thus, the NCA are allocated according to the following list as > determined by the lottery: > > Terry Davis - Contracted Parties House > Olga Cavalli - Non Contracted Parties House > Andrei Kolesnikov - Non Voting Seat > > I will be writing up the process followed and notifying the Board and > the Nomcom leadership of these results later today. > > > Thank you. > > a.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature