[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Tue Feb 2 15:08:25 UTC 2016
Why? You say that but you don’t explain it.
>From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear Andrew
Dear All,
I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO .
She kindly confirmed that
Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above.
We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS
Regards
kAVOUSS
2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >:
I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually
exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the
willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal
being adopted.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> ]
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is
completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds
for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are
mutually exclusive?
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
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>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/d140b57e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/d140b57e/image001.png>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list