<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="">I have been asking myself the same question, Greg, and I think it is an important one. Exactly who <b class=""><i class="">wants</i></b> this 2/3 rule? The GAC hasn’t said that it wants it. The GNSO has said it is strongly opposed to it. Others don’t seem to care much one way or another. So where is the push to do this coming from? Which SO-AC has said this is a “die in a ditch” issue for it and so therefore we must march forward in "compromise”? How did this even get into our proposal in the first place? It isn’t too late to fix this, so let’s deal with it before we are put in the spotlight and asked to explain how did we let it happen?<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Robin<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 28, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" class="">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd like to ask a simple question.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Aside from members of the GAC, is there any affirmative support for the 2/3 threshold? In other words, does any member or participant think that this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition? How about any chartering organization or constituent part of a chartering organization?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not asking about the value of compromise, or the effect (or lack thereof) of the change, or whether it's something you can live with. I'm asking about affirmative support.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">[cross-posts to GAC list removed]</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">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 GAC, </div><div class="">WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .</div><div class="">THAT IS NOT FAIR </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class="">Kavouss </div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank" class="">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span>:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26:54PM +0000, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br class="">
> Where in writing has the GAC stated that it will reject the accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<br class="">
<br class="">
</span>I didn't intend to suggest that they'd stated that in writing, but<br class="">
rather to suggest that the GAC had consensus around the 2/3 number.<br class="">
But this'll teach me to go from memory, because I was relying on my<br class="">
recollection of the Dublin communiqé. In fact it does not exactly say<br class="">
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.<br class="">
<br class="">
I still believe that the compromise position is an effective way<br class="">
forward that actually gives no additional real power to the GAC<br class="">
(because of the new Empowered Community) while yet granting the 2/3<br class="">
number that many seem to think is important. But the claim in favour<br class="">
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<br class="">
<div class=""><div class=""><br class="">
Best regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
A<br class="">
<br class="">
--<br class="">
Andrew Sullivan<br class="">
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank" class="">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br class="">
</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></div><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>