<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;}
/* 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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>OH … so you are just objecting politically, not in practice.<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'>Sorry … disagree. It isn’t a double gain for an SO and a double loss for an AC. To the contrary, the GAC gets exactly what it wants – preferential consideration of its advice by the Board – and the community gets what it needs – a check on the possibility of GAC overreach that cannot be thwarted by the GAC as an EC member.<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'>Happily, many GAC members disagree with you – at least the two contributors from Denmark and the UK have spoken somewhat favorably about this solution. Likewise (and I’m reading his mind again) even Jorge seems to think this solution has promise.<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'>Cheers<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><div><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:image001.png@01D15DA3.D601F540"></span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><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> Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:14 AM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <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></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Not at all<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>UNACCEPTABLE.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kavousd<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></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> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066</span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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></blockquote></div></body></html>