[CCWG-ACCT] RES: RES: Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishings
Perez Galindo, Rafael
RPEREZGA at minetur.es
Fri Jan 29 16:33:25 UTC 2016
No offence taken, you are a gentleman :-)
On the substance, my only aim was to avoid again polarizing views and start all over again from scratch...
I was personally happy to have found some agreement or deal within the CCWG, in which everyone made some concession.
I believe that Thanksgiving deal is the best this CCWG can offer as something everybody can live with. That is why I am very reluctant to again repeat the process and go through a duplication of last year's discussions.
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message --------
From: Malcolm Hutty
Date:29/01/2016 17:10 (GMT+01:00)
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" , Olga Cavalli , Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva , accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: RES: Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishings
On 29/01/2016 15:34, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Malcolm
> Pls be kind with the people and respect their views bad never ever make any judgement on that. You might have been disappointed of the GAC comment but you should kindly avoid to accuse them that they have made a mistake even though you might have dislike their views.
> I have always respected you and your views and continue to do it in future
> With my best renfards
Dear Kavouss and Rafael,
When I mentioned correcting a mistake, I was referring to a collective
mistake by the CCWG, for which I share my part of the responsibility; I
did not mean to accuse Raphael. If you understood any lack of courtesy
by my comment, please accept my apology.
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 29 Jan 2016, at 14:06, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2016 12:34, Perez Galindo, Rafael wrote:
>>> May I kindly remind you that our job now is only to deal with the
>>> comments received to our 3rd draft proposal in the public comment period
>>> in order to finalize the report?
>>> The text in that proposal was the outcome of hard negotiations within
>>> this group, which rendered a carefully crafted language that emerged on
>>> Thanksgiving Day as a "deal" among participants.
>>> Now, it amazes me that some people have opened up the discussion again
>> Dear Rafael,
>> The rushed proposal on Thanksgiving was arrived at in the expectation
>> that this would win the endorsement of the GAC for our report, and that
>> it would be acceptable to other parts of the community.
>> The comments received to the Third Draft Report show that it has not
>> achieved either of those things.
>> Surely the proper thing to do, when public comment shows that you have
>> made a mistake, is to correct it.
>> Kind Regards,
>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>> London Internet Exchange Ltd
>> Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community