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

[James M. Bladel]

Agree with Paul¹s last sentence.

Thanks‹

J.


On 2/2/16, 8:32 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Paul Rosenzweig"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

>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