<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Co-Chair,</div><div>Please read all messages .</div><div>Please listen to the overall disagreement to define GPI.</div><div>I sincerely request you:</div><div>1. Hold on the issue of asking Lawyer to define GPI</div><div>2. Include in the agenda of05 Jan the issue of the need or otherwise defining GPI in assigning about 15-20 mints to measure the temperture of the meeting on the matter.</div><div>3. Include also in the agenda of 05 Jan no. and duration of future meeting as well as your plan to tackle the public comment ,in particular , the Board's comments .</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Kavouss Arasteh</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: 2015-12-28 10:26 GMT+01:00<br>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [CCWG-Advisors] question regarding Global Public Interest<br>To: "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>><br>Cc: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>, Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>, Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>><br><br><br><div dir="auto"><div>Thomas,</div><div>It is more political than legal </div><div>Please look at dome if the example that I have provided.</div><div>As soon as you enter in the domain if " Public" you entered in the domain of government and that push you to political sphere.</div><div>Moreover, the legal views provide the understanding of individual legal expert thus very probably would not get public support.</div><div>Further problem would how ICANN would interprets that potential definition and how it uses that.</div><div>You push the community to a dangerous area as ICANN could reject many accountability provision using such un agreed potential definition .</div><div>CCWG must clearly warns ICANN that such authority to reject an accountability measure on the ground of vague and non agreed definition of GPI will not be given to them as they could reject any thing that properly and legally limit them them using that undefined term</div><div>Regards</div><span><div>Kavouss </div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div></span><span><div><br>On 28 Dec 2015, at 03:39, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Yes, Kavouss, I agree entirely. But at least it added some levity to the process. Asking experts in corporate law to define GPI, as if that were a legal rather
than purely political question, is particularly amusing. <a name="151e7ededf0f5ec8_151e7e95744ddd86__MailEndCompose">
<u></u><u></u></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom:10pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I DO NOT UNDERSTAND INSISTANCE OF SOME PEOPLE PUSHING TO HAVE A DEFINITION , in particular, believing that the legal adviser s are miracle makers</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></span></div></div><br></div>