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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Paul
Pls do not attach any other thing that principle,
I object to double gain for one SO snd double loose  for one AC   
on the principle of burden sharing and equal treatments of all SO and AC unless one believes that one should gain on two criteria and another one should loose on those two.
NOTHING MIRE THAN THAT PLS!
Regards
Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:24, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> OH … so you are just objecting politically, not in practice.
>  
> Sorry … disagree.  It isn’t a double gain for an SO and a double loss for an AC.  To the contrary, the GAC gets exactly what it wants – preferential consideration of its advice by the Board – and the community gets what it needs – a check on the possibility of GAC overreach that cannot be thwarted by the GAC as an EC member.
>  
> Happily, many GAC members disagree with you – at least the two contributors from Denmark and the UK have spoken somewhat favorably about this solution.  Likewise (and I’m reading his mind again) even Jorge seems to think this solution has promise.
>  
> Cheers
> 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 10:14 AM
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
>  
> 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/feba802e/attachment-0001.html>