[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Feb 19 17:59:46 UTC 2016
I don't think we need to resort to warning each other.
(Recursive irony intended).
On 19/02/16 17:22, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
> Dear Co-chairs
> You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly
> be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
> This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
> If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
> We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
> Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it
> does not come up as such
> If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
> Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to
> Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
> THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL
> Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the
> chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your
> 26 feb. calls
> Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial
> stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple
> majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.
> You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and
> would certainly be further grown up soon
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list