[CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Feb 19 17:59:46 UTC 2016

I don't think we need to resort to warning each other.

(Recursive irony intended).

On 19/02/16 17:22, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>     Dear Co-chairs
>     You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly
>     be echoed by other gouvernements soon.
>     This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,
>     If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,
>     We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.
>     Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it
>     does not come up as such
>     If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .
>     Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to
>     Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .
>     Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the
>     chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your
>     26 feb. calls
>     Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial
>     stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple
>     majority and 2/3 theshold  and rediscuss that.
>     You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and
>     would certainly be further grown up soon
>     Regards
>     Kavouss
> _______________________________________________
> 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