<HTML><BODY><p style='margin-top: 0px;' dir="ltr">Great question Greg. Especially since the answer is both obvious and compelling.</p>
<p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
Thursday, 28 January 2016, 06:24PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>:<br><br><blockquote style='border-left:1px solid #FC2C38; margin:0px 0px 0px 10px; padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;' cite="14540235170000091355">
<div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg">
<style type="text/css"></style>
<div >
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/" />
<div id="style_14540235170000091355_BODY"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd like to ask a simple question.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">[cross-posts to GAC list removed]</div></div><div ><br><div class="mail-quote-collapse"><div >On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>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>WIN-WIN YES, loose-loose yes ,for every body BUT NOT LOOSE FOR gac and win for the others .</div><div>THAT IS NOT FAIR </div><span ><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div></font></span></div><div ><div ><div ><br><div >2016-01-28 23:45 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>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 accountability proposal of the 2/3 threshold is not in there.<br>
<br>
</span>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 say<br>
that the GAC has consensus about the 2/3 threshold, so I'm wrong.<br>
<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 favour<br>
of 2/3 is indeed weaker given the GAC's stated positions.<br>
<div><div><br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org" target="_blank" >Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div><br></div>
</div>
<div>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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>
</div>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/" />
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></BODY></HTML>