<html>
<body>
I need some clarity from the Board.<br><br>
I can read Steve's message in two ways.<br><br>
1. They are sticking to their previous statement which I understood to
mean accepting the "carve-out", but not the reduction in the
threshhold to remove the Board. That stays at 4 (and requires unanimity)
unless there is a successful IRP).<br><br>
2. They are now withdrawing their previous position and rejecting the
carve-out excluding the GAC from participating in Community Powers
exercised in response to Board action/inaction over GAC advice.<br><br>
Steve?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 19/02/2016 12:37 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It is alarming that a few GAC
members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And
even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a
Board intervention.<br><br>
The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with
regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of
GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in
the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory
capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring
the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board
recall.<br><br>
When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as
well.<br><br>
Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will
the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?<br><br>
I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as
a warning to us all.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
<br><br>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">
kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message<br>
<dd>Regards<br>
<dd><font color="#888888">Kavouss <br>
</font><br>
<dd>2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">
kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Dear Co-chairs<br>
<dd>You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be
echoed by other gouvernements soon.<br>
<dd>This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,<br>
<dd>If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,<br>
<dd>We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.<br>
<dd>Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it
does not come up as such<br>
<dd>If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .<br>
<dd>Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole
member from Sole Member to Sole designator .<br>
<dd>THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL <br>
<dd>Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering
organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb.
calls<br>
<dd>Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial
stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple
majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.<br>
<dd>You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and
would certainly be further grown up soon<br>
<dd>Regards<br>
<dd><font color="#888888">Kavouss <br>
</font><br>
</dl><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>