Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi

[David Cake]

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