[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 15:14:18 UTC 2016


Dear Paul
Not at all
This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC
UNACCEPTABLE.
Regards
Kavousd


Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 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
> <image001.png>
>  
> 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>:
> 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
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM
> To: 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
> 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/20160202/2411e881/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list