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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Tue Feb 2 15:08:25 UTC 2016


Why?  You say that but you don’t explain it.  

 

>From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done.  Please explain

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

 

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

 

Dear Andrew

Dear All,

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 .

She kindly confirmed that

Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY  EXCLUSIVE  with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above.

We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO  MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS

Regards 

kAVOUSS

 

2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >:

I agree with Andrew.  Logically, there is no reason they are mutually
exclusive.  Politically, they are quite interdependent.  For some the
willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal
being adopted.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> 
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> 
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> 
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> ]
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC
consensus, and finishing

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

This is a new wrinkle.  I don't see how it's true.  Becky's proposal is
completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds
for the board's support.  Can you please explain why you think they are
mutually exclusive?

Best regards,

A


--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> 
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20160202/d140b57e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160202/d140b57e/image001.png>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list