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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 15:24:58 UTC 2016

Dear Andrew
Too much expectations.
The issue was discussed and many participants clearly mentioned that their main concerns was not to empower GAC to participate in an IRP dealing with GAC advice as objecting SO/AC but could agree to retain 2/3,
Based on that assumption I could agree to take Beck's proposal as an alternative ,
One SO should not have double gains and another AC left to a double loosing
Pls be fair . 
One GAC member mentioned that the more concession by GAC the more asked by others
This should be a WIN-WIN ,
Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:06, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> 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
>> .
> That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was
> trying to make.
>> Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY  EXCLUSIVE  with Her Proposal
>> after editorial amendments mentioned above.
> Why?  I don't get it.  
> One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to
> take a specific kind of decision.  
> The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact
> when making such a decision.  In this particular case, it is a rule
> that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice
> that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not
> also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of
> the board's subesquent actions.  Since there is only one body that has
> the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the
> body the rule applies to.  I think it's not too much to say that, if
> we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would
> apply to them.
> Best regards,
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list