[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 22:53:32 UTC 2016
GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no consensus is
reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their objection, GAC must formally
reject the Recommendation as currently GAC lost o-1 because of Stress Test
18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3 supermajority becomes Simple Majority then
GAC would loose o-2 .That is not fair .There should not win loose against
WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win
for the others .
THAT IS NOT FAIR
2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> > Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the
> accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.
> I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but
> rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.
> But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my
> recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not exactly say
> that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.
> I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way
> forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC
> (because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3
> number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in favour
> of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community