<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:ArialMT;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Surely you jest. <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-2-redacted-09jul15-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-2-redacted-09jul15-en.pdf</a>. The GAC objection to the .Africa delegation was accepted by the Board. The IRP found that interference improper under the Bylaws. From paragraph 109 of the decision: “</span><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>the fact that DCA Trust was never given<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>any notice or an opportunity in Beijing or elsewhere to make its<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>position known or defend its own interests before the GAC reached<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>consensus on the GAC Objection Advice, and that the Board of<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>ICANN did not take any steps to address this issue, leads this Panel<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>to conclude that both the actions and inactions of the Board with<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>respect to the application of DCA Trust relating to the .AFRICA gTLD<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>were not procedures designed to insure the fairness required by<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>Article III, Sec. 1 above, and are therefore inconsistent with the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"ArialMT",sans-serif'>Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of ICANN.”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> You may disagree with the IRPs judgement, but to say that the GAC has never interfered with anything is categorically wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=578 height=87 id="Picture_x0020_7" src="cid:image003.png@01D15AB8.2EAE1D20"></span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 29, 2016 4:34 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><br><b>Cc:</b> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I categorically disagree that GAC has ever interferened with any thing.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kavouss <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2016-01-29 22:29 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>Jorge<br><br>To answer your question directly -- No. The principle is not as you suggest<br>it is, but rather an attempt to accommodate concerns about the unique<br>position of the GAC. Since you don't (it seems) accept the uniqueness of<br>the GAC's advice process you, naturally, misread the principle.<br><br>If the GAC were to agree to all of the preliminary steps identified for a<br>PDP (<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/31379/</a>) before it issued advice I would<br>gladly acknowledge equivalence in voting within the EC to overturn that<br>advicce. The GAC can't of course (nor should it).<br><br>All the best<br>Paul<br><br>Paul Rosenzweig<br><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>Link to my PGP Key<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>]<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:12 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>consensus, and finishing<br><br>Well the principle put forward by Becky, as I understand it, is to avoid<br>that one sub-entity of ICANN (she focuses on GAC) may block a community IRP<br>brought forward against an action of the Board which is the result of that<br>sub-entities initiative.<br><br>Is that principle not applicable to all SO/AC?<br><br>why?<br><br>regards<br><br>Jorge<br><br>Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br><br>> Am 29.01.2016 um 22:06 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig<br><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br>><br>> With respect Jorge, you keep saying that but it simply isn't true. As<br>> Keith described in some detail on the last call (and in the chat) the<br>> gNSO provisions are quite different.<br>><br>> Your argument is, inherently, logically inconsistent. ON the one<br>> hand, because governments "represent their citizens" (many of them<br>> don't, but let's leave that aside) their advice deserves special<br>> consideration, but because they are an AC they should be treated like<br>> other ACs or (here, you<br>> leap) other SOs. You can't really have it both ways.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>> Link to my PGP Key<br>><br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>]<br>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:01 PM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>> consensus, and finishing<br>><br>> A special status which is (with the 2/3) similar to the status<br>> currently accorded to GNSO (PDP and Guidance Procedure) and CCNSO.<br>><br>> Best<br>><br>> Jorge<br>><br>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>><br>>> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:20 schrieb Burr, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>:<br>>><br>>> Jorge, I don¹t understand the concept of neutral application given<br>>> the fact that the GAC has a special status that other SO/ACs don¹t<br>>> have (Board must engage in effort to find a mutually acceptable<br>>> solution regarding GAC<br>>> Advice)<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>>> General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>>> Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="http://neustar.biz" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><br>>> <<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> On 1/29/16, 3:08 PM, "<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>"<br>>> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>>> Would that be applicable in SO/AC-neutral terms?<br>>>><br>>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>>>><br>>>> Am 29.01.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Burr, Becky<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>>:<br>>>><br>>>> I have a proposal for discussion.<br>>>><br>>>> Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only<br>>>> consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we<br>>>> accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC<br>>>> cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of<br>>>> community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC<br>Advice.<br>>>> In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than<br>>>> two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the<br>>>> Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of<br>>>> ICANN¹s Mission.<br>>>><br>>>> I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might<br>>>> otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the<br>>>> 2/3rds rejection threshold.<br>>>><br>>>> Just a thought -<br>>>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>>>> Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367">+1.202.352.6367</a> /<br>>>> <a href="http://neustar.biz" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>>>><br>>>> From: Greg Shatan<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>><br>>>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM<br>>>> To: "Mueller, Milton L"<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>><br>>>> Cc: Accountability Community<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cros">accountability-cros</a><br>>>> s<br>>>> -comm<br>>>> <a href="mailto:unity@icann.org">unity@icann.org</a>>><br>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>>>> consensus, and finishing<br>>>><br>>>> Milton,<br>>>><br>>>> I agree with your assessment of the situation, and I think you are<br>>>> likely correct about the answer to my question. I wanted to see if<br>>>> I had overlooked positive support for the 2/3 majority as such. It<br>>>> appears that (subject to further responses) I have not.<br>>>><br>>>> Greg<br>>>><br>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mueller, Milton L<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>>>> Greg:<br>>>> It was clear from the earlier (pre-transition) process that there<br>>>> was virtually no positive support outside GAC for the proposition<br>>>> that the board could only reject its advice with a 2/3 majority.<br>>>> There was, in fact, overwhelming opposition to the 2/3 threshold.<br>>>> Insofar as that idea gained acceptance (not support), it was<br>>>> perceived as a compromise that would help the GAC to accept a<br>>>> requirement that it continue to act on the basis of UN consensus.<br>>>><br>>>> So I think the answer to your question, ³is there any affirmative<br>>>> support for the 2/3 threshold?² outside the GAC is clearly no.<br>>>><br>>>> From:<br>>>> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountabili">accountabili</a><br>>>> t<br>>>> y-cro<br>>>> <a href="mailto:ss-community-bounces@icann.org">ss-community-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:acco">acco</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>>>> u ntabi <a href="mailto:lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">lity-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>] On Behalf Of Greg<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>>> Shatan<br>>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:58 AM<br>>>> To: Alan Greenberg<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>><br>>>> Cc:<br>>>> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross">accountability-cross</a><br>>>> -<br>>>> commu<br>>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC<br>>>> consensus, and finishing<br>>>><br>>>> Alan,<br>>>><br>>>> I think you misunderstand the question. Of course ALAC has decided<br>>>> to join a position supported by the bulk of the other participants,<br>>>> even where it did not really agree with that position. Every<br>>>> stakeholder and stakeholder structure has done that, here (and in<br>>>> every other WG, I assume), to avoid being an outlier and to honor<br>>>> the building of consensus. This is the usual move at some point in<br>>>> the consensus-building process, when dealing with a position that<br>>>> has broad multistakeholder support.<br>>>><br>>>> But this virtually always starts with a position that already has<br>>>> significant multistakeholder support.<br>>>><br>>>> I am honestly unclear whether the 2/3 proposal, on its own, has<br>>>> broad multistakeholder support. I could jump to conclusions, but I<br>>>> prefer not to. Hence the question, which I think is quite relevant.<br>>>> First, if I go back to my constituency and tell them that we are the<br>>>> outlier and this has broad multistakeholder support, that may be<br>>>> persuasive to some of them, committed as we are to consensus-driven<br>processes.<br>>>> Second, I think it is relevant to understand the context of this<br>>>> particular position, isolated from discussions of the value of<br>>>> compromise and other such things.<br>>>><br>>>> Greg<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Alan Greenberg<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>> wrote:<br>>>> Greg,<br>>>><br>>>> That is a simple question, but not a particularly relevant one in my<br>>>> mind. I and ALAC have accepted a LOT of things that we do not<br>>>> believe "is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or<br>>>> corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the<br>transition".<br>>>> So have other parts of the community.<br>>>><br>>>> I would ask the opposite. What is the HARM? The overall number of<br>>>> times that GAC advice is rejected is small. I find it hard to<br>>>> imagine that there will be any substantive difference in outcomes in<br>>>> the future with the two alternatives. If people want to die in the<br>>>> ditch (so to speak) over the difference, I guess that is what will<br>happen.<br>>>><br>>>> Alan<br>>>><br>>>> At 28/01/2016 06:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> I'd like to ask a simple question.<br>>>><br>>>> Aside from members of the GAC, is there any affirmative support for<br>>>> the<br>>>> 2/3 threshold? In other words, does any member or participant think<br>>>> that this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or<br>>>> corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the<br>>>> transition? How about any chartering organization or constituent<br>>>> part of a chartering organization?<br>>>><br>>>> I'm not asking about the value of compromise, or the effect (or lack<br>>>> thereof) of the change, or whether it's something you can live with.<br>>>> I'm asking about affirmative support.<br>>>><br>>>> Greg<br>>>><br>>>> [cross-posts to GAC list removed]<br>>>><br>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<br>>>> <a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>>> GAC did not formally reject the Rec 11 in announcing that " no<br>>>> consensus is reached " GNSO and its spokemen push for their<br>>>> objection, GAC must formally reject the Recommendation as currently<br>>>> GAC lost o-1 because of Stress Test 18 ,if such ST remains and 2/ 3<br>>>> supermajority becomes Simple Majority then GAC would loose o-2 .That<br>>>> is not fair .There should not win loose against GAC, WIN-WIN YES,<br>>>> loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for<br>>>> the others .<br>>>> THAT IS NOT FAIR<br>>>> Kavouss<br>>>> 2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan<br>>>> <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> >:<br>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br>>>>> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the<br>>>>> accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<br>>>> I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but<br>>>> rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.<br>>>> But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my<br>>>> recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not exactly<br>>>> say that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.<br>>>> I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way<br>>>> forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC<br>>>> (because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3<br>>>> number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in<br>>>> favour of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<br>>>> Best regards,<br>>>> A<br>>>> --<br>>>> Andrew Sullivan<br>>>> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>><br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>>>> -<br>>>> Commu<br>>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>>>> i<br>>>> lman_<br>>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>>>> A<br>>>> LC_lU<br>>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>>>> B<br>>>> r31se<br>>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>>>> e<br>>>> =<br>>>> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m</a><br>>>> a<br>>>> ilman<br>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe<br>>>> D<br>>>> ALC_l<br>>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E<br>>>> o<br>>>> paZqi<br>>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI<br>>>> &<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=im>>>> e=></span><br><span class=im>>>></span><br><span class=im>>>> _______________________________________________</span><br><span class=im>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>>>> -<br>>>> Commu<br>>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>>>> i<br>>>> lman_<br>>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>>>> A<br>>>> LC_lU<br>>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>>>> B<br>>>> r31se<br>>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>>>> e<br>>>> =<br>>>> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m</a><br>>>> a<br>>>> ilman<br>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe<br>>>> D<br>>>> ALC_l<br>>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E<br>>>> o<br>>>> paZqi<br>>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI<br>>>> &<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=im>>>> e=></span><br><span class=im>>>></span><br><span class=im>>>> _______________________________________________</span><br><span class=im>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a><br>>>> -<br>>>> Commu<br>>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>><br>>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a><br>>>> i<br>>>> lman_<br>>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD<br>>>> A<br>>>> LC_lU<br>>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj<br>>>> B<br>>>> r31se<br>>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&<br>>>> e<br>>>> =<br>>>> <<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m</a><br>>>> a<br>>>> ilman<br>>>> _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETe<br>>>> D<br>>>> ALC_l<br>>>> ULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IPeeS727VSPyw6E<br>>>> o<br>>>> paZqi<br>>>> SVdGmc7CU9_kkXYW3JiLjE&s=xohs2ScA5mgcD6vDqSINegEcDgo0OnBIZYQvTaptkRI<br>>>> &<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=im>>>> e=></span><br><span class=im>>>></span><br><span class=im>>>></span><br><span class=im>>>> _______________________________________________</span><br><span class=im>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span class=im>>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross">Accountability-Cross</a></span><br><span class=im>>>> -</span><br><span class=im>>>> Commu</span><br><span class=im>>>> <a href="mailto:nity@icann.org">nity@icann.org</a>></span><br><span class=im>>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma</a></span><br><span class=im>>>> i</span><br><span class=im>>>> lman_</span><br><span class=im>>>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD</span><br><span class=im>>>> A</span><br><span class=im>>>> LC_lU</span><br><span class=im>>>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=hztKOghNjATPghuj</span><br><span class=im>>>> B</span><br><span class=im>>>> r31se</span><br><span class=im>>>> 8zAnPYjgu096CZkLJH1M8&s=QGFS5bJ0Cv64FcImyPiJjRr4NoogMmK4gR_b5V_-SJk&</span><br><span class=im>>>> e</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>>> =<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>