[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Mar 4 08:40:24 UTC 2016

To the best of my knowledge, the GNSO has not 
passed a formal motion saying that they will 
participate in the Empowered Community (EC), and 
I *KNOW* that the ALAC has not. I believe that the same is true for the ccNSO.

If and when we ratify Recommendation 1 describing 
the EC as including the ALAC (as we have in our 
comments to the earlier drafts), we will de facto 
have accepted out participation


At 01/03/2016 11:37 AM, Schaefer, Brett 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.
>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 
><<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>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 
><<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>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
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160304/efb2e167/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list