NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Ken Herman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 May 2024 17:57:27 +0200
Reply-To:
Johan Helsingius <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Johan Helsingius <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
On 30/05/2024 16:03, Ken Herman wrote:
> Can you clarify what’s behind the need for this? 

Basically a couple of cases where some constituencies haven't been happy
with the consensus result achieved in a working group, so they block it
in Council. Unfortunately it works both ways, but I don't think trying
to force the council to always agree with WG recommendations is the
solution - what is needed is some sort of "provide good justification
to disagreeing".

	Julf

ATOM RSS1 RSS2