[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

Mon Feb 1 13:31:05 UTC 2016

Dear brett
Thank you very much for yr message
GAC UNANIMOUSLY agreed two years ago as well as in Dublin about 2/3  majority.
Believe me I have no strong interest on any issue as you described me  .
I just wanted to avoid division and maintain unity of CCWG .for this reason I have launched a compromise of 60% instead of 2/3( 66.66%) with the hope we CCWG family remained united and looking for a compromise
Kavousd  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 14:11, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
> 
> Kavouss, you haven't made any substantive arguments explaining why others should abandon their principled opposition other than an vague threat that the GAC might not like it, which isn't actually clear since we don't know how many in the GAC feel as strongly as you do.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
> 
> __________
> 
> On Feb 1, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Dear Co-Chair
> I spent my life on international hard decision making sometime fully political.
> I have been succeded to try ion finding siolutions
> In World Radiocommunication Conference, 2015, at the last minute, one government moved a motion of order which could be been resulted to voting which everbody disliked
> I moved another motion of order ( requesting suspension of the meeting for 15 mints) my motion of ordfered in the formal ITU rank superceded the former motion of order and thus accepted.
> The Plenary suspended its meeting for 15 mintes. During that period I gathered all concerned parties at a cornder and described that a bad Conference is the one which decide on an issue by voting due to the fact that voting signifies division and divergence of views. I encouage all to accept a compromise that I made.
> The compromise was accepted by the group .We went t back to plenary and that government which moved a motion of order withdrew his motion on the consdition that my compromise be debated,
> My compromise was in fact immediately accepted even without being debated.
> That saved the Conferencer deciding on an issue through voting.
> I have done that many times except one time for which I feel terribly aorry even after many years.
> Pls kindly take my compromise for 605 of threshold insted of 2/3 ( 66.66 %)
> Best Regards
> Kavouss
> 
> 2016-02-01 13:21 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>:
> I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?
> 
> I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097>
> heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
> 
> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.
> 
> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation.  It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:
> 
> Votes
> 
> Percentage
> 
> Result
> 
> 8/16
> 
> 50%
> 
> No
> 
> 9/16
> 
> 56.25%
> 
> Yes, by majority
> 
> 10/16
> 
> 62.50%
> 
> Yes, if by 60%
> 
> 11/16
> 
> 68.75%
> 
> Yes, if by 2/3
> 
> 
> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold.  Win/win?
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs
> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60%
> There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold
> Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll
> Awaiting for your reply
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 