<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My responses are inline below.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Minority Statement </div><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Dear All,</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">I have read
and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now
supported by 11 other governments.</font></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority statement.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders? We should not emphasize one Minority Statement over another. </div></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">There serval
messages in that Statement </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">GAC Situation
at this very moment</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US">In
future only a full Consensus <span> </span>Advice in
the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is
quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of
the date of the transition coming in to force , <b><span style="color:red">NO</span></b><span style="color:red"> <b>MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD <span> </span>BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due
to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members,
<u>one single <span> </span>Government<span> </span>on any ground as it so wishes could block
that</u></b> Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board</span>.
This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts
of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed
ST18</span></p></li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is not a new working method. This is not quite different from the existing situation. It is the current and longstanding working method of the GAC.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that advice. But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently with that advice -- <u>and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks to the new Proposal</u>.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to full-consensus advice. However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo (full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even <i>greater</i> deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its advice will be even harder for the Board to reject. There's no reason that this would result in "no more GAC advice".</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">(If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.) </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Consequently the so-called special privilege
repeatedly referred to <span> </span>by others would
in fact very rarely happens</font></span></b></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every time the GAC acts.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">The
2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed <span> </span>but was not accepted unless the existing
Simple Majority is retained<span> </span>However, if
instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be <span> </span>combined with <span> </span>the so-called <b><span style="color:red">CARE-OUT CONCEPT</span></b> .This implies that
on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most
lowest level , almost zero probability <span> </span>based on the <span> </span>argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even
if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice <span> </span>with full consensus, that advice may be
rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member</span></p></li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is what has been proposed. I'm not certain of the rest of your point, especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any rarer than it is now.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p></li><li style="color:red;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">Should
the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or
if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of
negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or
just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in
favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent
with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. <span style="color:red">As results of application of so-called carve-out
approach/concept <span> </span>GAC would excluded to
exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making <span> </span>and defend the case</span></span></p></li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. Under the carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the decisional moment. </div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0pt"><span lang="EN-US">These
unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al</span></p></li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC. If anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given the 60% supermajority. Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple" is a small counterbalance to this privileged position.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US">in
view of the above GAC <span> </span>has lost the
battle in three DIFFERENT <span> </span>fronts</span></p></li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders). The GAC has won its supermajority vote battle. The GAC members signing on to the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered a multistakeholder debate very much like the one we have had for many months). As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing. The carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><b><span lang="EN-US">6<span> </span>Some
other communities said that </span></b><span lang="EN-US">in exchange of what GAC <span> </span>lost ,it <span> </span>has <span> </span>gained the ability to exercise the community
power and become a decisional making community in some areas.</span></font></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">7<span> </span>Such empowerment which did not
exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">8<span> </span>That is not totally correct due to
the following</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">8.1<span> </span>Some of the power is now waived as
results of application of so-called Carve-out </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">8.2<span> </span>GAC has not decided and may never
decide to exercise those powers atall,</font></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's ability to participate is completely unfettered. If the GAC does not decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the "carve-out" is moot. In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to exercise those powers whenever it wants to.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">9.<span> </span>In view of the above, there is a
need to give a fresh look and reconsider the situation.</font></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration of the situation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">10. Based on
the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that
the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC?</font></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I think we have a win-win in the current proposal. Every side of the equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and consensus.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3"> 11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake .</font></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I don't see the current proposal as a mistake. The only mistakes I see here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000">Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.</font></span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000">However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem</font></span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><span lang="EN-US"></span><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#ff0000"><strong>Pelasse kindly
be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the
IVCANN ETHIC </strong></font></span></font></font></p><font color="#ff0000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong></font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri" size="3"><strong>You may
disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message </strong></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Regards</font></span></p><span><font color="#888888"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">Kavouss </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></font></span></div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>All,</div><div>Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. </div><div><br></div><div>Let me just be clear:</div><div><br></div><div>We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. </div><div><br></div><div>Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. </div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div>Thomas Rickert</div><div><br></div><div><div><div><span style="font-size:13pt">---</span></div><div><a href="http://rickert.net" target="_blank">rickert.net</a></div><div><br></div></div></div><span><div><br>Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:<br><br></div></span><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>1)<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Change from Single Member to Single Designator<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>2)<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">GAC advice gets a 60% threshold<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>3)<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></span><div><span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Paul Rosenzweig<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">Link to my PGP Key</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p></span><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt;text-decoration:none"><image001.png></span></a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com" target="_blank">epilisse@gmail.com</a> [<a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:epilisse@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM<br><b>To:</b> CCWG Accountability <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Lisse Eberhard <<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.net" target="_blank">directors@omadhina.net</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div name="messageBodySection"><p class="MsoNormal">I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.<br><br>In any case let me place the current state on the record:<br><br>Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.<br><br>But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.<br><br>These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.<br><br>Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.<br><br>In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.<br><br>Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.<br><br><br>el<u></u><u></u></p></div><div name="messageSignatureSection"><p class="MsoNormal"><br>--<br>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini<u></u><u></u></p></div><div name="messageReplySection"><p class="MsoNormal"><br>On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>, wrote:<br><br><u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></blockquote></div></span></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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><br></div></div>