[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

[Paul Rosenzweig]

As I said, it was not my conclusion but that of the IRP.  I am sure you can
read that decision ....

P

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key



-----Original Message-----
From: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:40 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: 'Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams' <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>; 'Kavouss
Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
consensus, and finishing

Mr. Rosenzweig,

Your initial remark, which I assumed was not in jest, was that the GAC had
interfered.

I assume you'd like to convey to others what that interference was.

If you could identify the act of interference that would be helpful.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

> 
> As I said before, perhaps not clearly enough for you, I have no view 
> on the matter.  The IRP (that you seem to want to ignore) did, 
> however, have a view.  I would not want to attempt to summarize it for 
> fear of not doing it justice.  Indeed, the entire opinion is worth 
> reading.  If you read that and do not think that the IRP concluded 
> that GAC had acted improperly, so be it ... but no fair reading of the
opinion could interpret it that way.
> 
>