At 9:02 AM +0300 14/3/10, Avri Doria wrote: >On 13 Mar 2010, at 21:50, David Cake wrote: > >> The VI resolution was a sensible middle ground IF you believe >>that the board is genuinely waiting for the GNSO VI policy process, >>and is likely to accept its recommendations.. If you believe the >>board is paying lip service to the GNSO policy process, and intends >>to ultimately reject VI, then it is not. > >if the GNSO reaches a supermajority n the VI then the Board needs a >supermajority to reject it. > >plus i don't know what gives yuo the idea that they want to >ultimately reject it. I actually am optimistic that the board intends to adopt the GNSO policy (and that the GNSO policy will end up reasonable) - but I think Milton is less optimistic, based on board language in their resolution. > i think it is possible that we have a rather reasonable board and >the moment and should give it a chance to do the right thing. I agree. Regards David