[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Mar 2 11:14:46 UTC 2016
Once again I have not made any proposal at all
GAC participation is well addressed in the proposal .
Pls kindly do not misinterpret me and pls do not advocate something that you want to say on my behalf
I have no comments to the CCWG AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
I hope this clarified the natter twice
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 17:37, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> 2016-03-01 16:32 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
> From: Jordan Carter [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> 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:
> Brett Schaefer
> 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
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community