[CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All 
We gave been working for 14 months without a single voting.
ICG almost completed its works without voting.
CWG did not Vote ,as dar as I knew
Hood luck to accept 60%
Regards
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Feb 2016, at 01:45, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 
> Amen. Let’s not fall on our sword over a single vote.
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:30 PM
> To: Greg Shatan
> Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution
>  
> Thanks to Kavouss for this suggestion, and to Greg for highlighting it. I hope we can all consider this as a possible further compromise solution that might bring us to resolution. I know we are all committed to the successful completion of our work in a timely manner. Let's not miss this opportunity to reach consensus and finish our work in a collaborative manner. 
>  
> Regards to all.
> Keith
> 
> 
> On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.  
>  
> Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.
>  
> Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation.  It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:
>  
> Votes
> Percentage
> Result
> 8/16
> 50%
> No
> 9/16
> 56.25%
> Yes, by majority
> 10/16
> 62.50%
> Yes, if by 60%
> 11/16
> 68.75%
> Yes, if by 2/3
>  
> This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold.  Win/win?
>  
> Greg
>  
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs
> Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60%
> There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold
> Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll
> Awaiting for your reply
> Kavouss
>  
>  
> [...]
> 
> 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160201/d8ff4fd9/attachment-0001.html>