[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Mon Feb 1 17:49:05 UTC 2016
As I said, it was not my conclusion but that of the IRP. I am sure you can
read that decision ....
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net]
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:40 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: 'Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams' <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>; 'Kavouss
Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
consensus, and finishing
Mr. Rosenzweig,
Your initial remark, which I assumed was not in jest, was that the GAC had
interfered.
I assume you'd like to convey to others what that interference was.
If you could identify the act of interference that would be helpful.
Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon
>
> As I said before, perhaps not clearly enough for you, I have no view
> on the matter. The IRP (that you seem to want to ignore) did,
> however, have a view. I would not want to attempt to summarize it for
> fear of not doing it justice. Indeed, the entire opinion is worth
> reading. If you read that and do not think that the IRP concluded
> that GAC had acted improperly, so be it ... but no fair reading of the
opinion could interpret it that way.
>
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list