<div dir="ltr">Dear Andrew<div>Dear All,</div><div>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 .</div><div>She kindly confirmed that</div><div>Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above.</div><div>We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS</div><div>Regards </div><div>kAVOUSS</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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 class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Paul<br>
</font></span><span class="im HOEnZb"><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" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM<br>
To: <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>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">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" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>