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@gatech.edu>:

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@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@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:

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community