<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 17, 2015, at 5:55 PM, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" class="">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" class="">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Dear Keith<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">We are having very interesting discussions in the ST-18 subgroup. Would be really good to discuss your points there.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Just briefly to respond that the GAC Dublin consensus input to the CCWG supports the autonomy of ACs to establish their own definition of consensus, that for the GAC it is currently so that it decides on its own definition of consensus (which triggers the mutually accepted solution procedure), and that the “decisional role” is being offered not only to the GAC but all interested SO and ACs. As to the 2/3 threshold it is nothing new and it was part of the GAC Dublin consensus input.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Sorry to quote one message but refer to a good number of them, but I noticed a good number of GAC Members mentioning what the GAC Dublin consensus input means; frankly, I've read it a few times and it still seems to have some "creative ambiguity" around, which usually indicate some sort of compromise among GAC members to postpone non-consensus positions to other date and fora, such as CCWG. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>So, I would be extremely careful in applying the GAC Dublin input as meaning some of what has been mentioned here as what it means. For instance, the passage below:</div><div>"In assessing the specific accountability recommendations put forth so far by the CCWGAccountability,
the GAC considers that whatever the final outcome of this process may be, the
new accountability framework to be agreed upon must preserve the current role of
governments in ICANN"</div><div>could be interpreted as blocking any change such as the 2/3 threshold, since that wouldn't preserve but increase the role of governments. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>OTOH, the Dublin input suggests that a proposal is forthcoming, and such a proposal might be more clear in many aspects. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>