Hi,

Appreciate the vote of confidence, Nicolas. When I sent the first email, I did say that another option to endorsing or rejecting the letter would be to suggest edits that would make it more appealing.

I would certainly feel better about endorsing the draft letter PROVIDED that it includes that: if the BWG-NomCom adopts options i, ii and iii as stated by you, the GNSO Council would find the report to be more favourable.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> :)
> 
> I'm thinking that supporting the letter while pursuing these options, namely,
> 
> i) pushing for more GNSO reps on the board
> ii) getting at least 4 votes on the NomCom for GNSO and less for ccNSO
> iii) barring getting 4 votes on the nomcom, getting an automatic split for GNSO's 3 votes
> 
> is the move more likely to help us achieve anything in i, ii, and iii.
> 
> But seriously Amr I would be happy with your way of doing if you'd act otherwise. You've convinced me many times over that I'm happy following you.
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> 
> On 17/12/2014 2:47 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> True, then we'd have a little (not much) to bargain with.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we should support the letter ;)
>> Hahaha!! That’s precisely what I’m trying to avoid!! But I have initiated this discussion with the knowledge that I am in a minority opinion on this, and will grudgingly (just this once :)) respect the wishes of others.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr