[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I thought doing it this way was one of the earlier compromises in this
extended end game.

avri


On 01-Mar-16 11:37, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> Kavouss,
>
>  
>
> I am mildly surprised that you, as someone who has been very
> protective of the right of the GAC to make its own decisions, is not
> upset with the determination by the CCWG to make GAC a decisional
> participant by default before it has actually made this decision for
> itself.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
>  
>
> Brett
>
>  
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:28 AM
> *To:* Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
>  
>
> Dear All,
>
> Yo are too worried about something that we still do not know how it
> happens
>
> The text approriate and clearly mention that if the No of Decision
> Making SO and AC changed the threshold should be adjusted
>
> That is more than sufficient.
>
> People need to refrain concentrating/ focussing on a particular AC nor
> envisage all possible senarios.
>
> We are not wtritting Bylaws at this stage .
>
> There is ample time and competent individuals to look at the matter
> once happened.
>
> Let us discontinue this counterproductive discussion
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss  
>
>  
>
> 2016-03-01 16:32 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>]
>
> Sorry, wrong. The assumption has been made and it is the same as the
> assumption that was made in the Third, Second and First Draft Reports.
> GAC is going to be listed in the fundamental bylaws as a decisional
> participant in the Empowered Community.  
>
>  
>
> Huh? See below
>
>  
>
> The only way that could change would be if GAC advised it did not wish
> to do so. Same with any other group.
>
>  
>
> Which they haven’t done yet. Ergo, my statement below was correct.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 1 March 2016 at 13:16, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Whether one agrees with Brett or not, the fact remains that GAC
>     has explicitly told us that it is _/undecided/_ on whether to be a
>     decisional participant or not. Therefore, until we get a positive
>     decision from them, we cannot assume that they will be by default.
>     Greg S. was saying essentially the same thing:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus