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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Tue Feb 2 15:24:02 UTC 2016


OH … so you are just objecting politically, not in practice.

 

Sorry … disagree.  It isn’t a double gain for an SO and a double loss for an AC.  To the contrary, the GAC gets exactly what it wants – preferential consideration of its advice by the Board – and the community gets what it needs – a check on the possibility of GAC overreach that cannot be thwarted by the GAC as an EC member.

 

Happily, many GAC members disagree with you – at least the two contributors from Denmark and the UK have spoken somewhat favorably about this solution.  Likewise (and I’m reading his mind again) even Jorge seems to think this solution has promise.

 

Cheers

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 10:14 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

 

Dear Paul

Not at all

This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC

UNACCEPTABLE.

Regards

Kavousd



Sent from my iPhone


On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:

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> <image001.png>

 

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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >; 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

 

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/20160202/8d69e490/attachment-0001.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/20160202/8d69e490/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list