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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Please read my two previous messages
Tks
Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 15:55, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
> 
> I disagree, we can most certainly and most easily take both, they are
> not exclusive, in fact the complement each other.
> 
> el
> 
> 
>> On 2016-02-02 16:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> 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
> [...]
> -- 
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421             \     /
> Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community