Dear Kavouss, Thank you for your compromise proposal/ solution. The CCWG really does need to get over this huge hurdle. I am struggling to keep to up. In preparation for the call tomorrow , could you/ Co Chairs summarise your and Becky ' alternative recommendation. The key question to me is which is easier to implement and the simplest to understand. Many thanks, Phil -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 01 February 2016 13:35 To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The 60 percent solution Dear Brett I think it id more straight forward to take 60% than Becky ,s proposal not because mine is better but more simpler. Regards I appeal to you and your distinguished colleagues as well as Becky to kindly consider 60% with favourable thought Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Feb 2016, at 13:21, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't the arguments against the 2/3 requirement, which is after all 66%, apply just as much to the 60% proposal?
I think Becky's proposal gets much closer to addressing the substance of the concerns raised.
________________________________ 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 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Jan 31, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I wanted to pluck this suggestion out of the email swamp.
Kavouss made an alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3 -- the alternative threshold is 60%.
Speaking only for myself, this could be a simple but creative way out of the current situation. It is a literally a middle ground between the current majority threshold and the previously proposed 2/3 threshold:
Votes
Percentage
Result
8/16
50%
No
9/16
56.25%
Yes, by majority
10/16
62.50%
Yes, if by 60%
11/16
68.75%
Yes, if by 2/3
This would require one more vote than the current threshold and one less vote than the 2/3 threshold. Win/win?
Greg
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs Pls kindly confirm that you have received my last alternative proposal concerning another threshold between Simple Majority and 2/3. This alternative threshould is 60% There has been many cases considered with that level of threshold Pls confirm its recption and confirm actions to be taken before you go to poll Awaiting for your reply Kavouss
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<h ttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community