<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear Paul</div><div>Not at all</div><div>This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC</div><div>UNACCEPTABLE.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavousd</div><div><br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><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;}
/* 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.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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]--><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Why? You say that but you don’t explain it. <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">From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain<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<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"><image001.png></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 [<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><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><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Andrew<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO .<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">She kindly confirmed that<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS<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">2016-02-02 15:32 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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually<br>exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the<br>willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal<br>being adopted.<br><span style="color:#888888"><br><span class="hoenzb">Paul</span><br></span><br><span class="im">Paul Rosenzweig</span><br><span class="im"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a></span><br><span class="im">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span><br><span class="im">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span><br><span class="im">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a></span><br><span class="im">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066</span><br><br><br><span class="im">-----Original Message-----</span><br><span class="im">From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>]</span><br><span class="im">Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM</span><br><span class="im">To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a></span><br><span class="im">Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC</span><br><span class="im">consensus, and finishing</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>> THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.<br><br>This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is<br>completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds<br>for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are<br>mutually exclusive?<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>A<br><br><br>--<br>Andrew Sullivan<br><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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>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></div></blockquote></body></html>