I think the GNSO will likely want to push as a whole for options i) and 
ii), so they should welcome these edits.

iii) is our own internal charm game with the other GNSO SGs.

Thank *you*, Amr, for putting time in these matter.

Nicolas

On 17/12/2014 3:14 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 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