All,

As I have respectfully noted several times, and will reiterate again...the GAC as a whole has taken no position on Rec-1 and Rec-11 and is highly unlikely to do so. There simply is not consensus within the GAC on these issues. The Arasteh/Burr proposal is as close as we're likely to get to a compromise that will not be rejected by any Chartering Org and will be acceptable to NTIA and Congress. This is it. It's time to finalize this work and deliver a proposal to the Chartering Organizations so we can meet the Marrakech deadline for approval.

Regards,
Keith

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 6, 2016, at 2:17 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Andrew on this, this is a topic we can debate for weeks on end. We need to move forward.
>
> -jg
>
>
>
>
>> On 06/02/2016, 6:53 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:31:03PM +0000, Perez Galindo, Rafael wrote:
>>>
>>> For that reason, I believe it should be very carefully analyzed and assessed, from an implementing and legal POV. Such a decision cannot be taken in a rush, without considering its consequences and possible side effects.
>>
>> I agree it should be carefully analysed and contemplated, but that
>> analysis and contemplation should take place before the next call not
>> dedicated to Rec. 11 (my calendar seems to think that's Tuesday).
>>
>> The CCWG needs to come to a close and ship something -- even a report
>> out that there's no solution would be better than more delay.  There
>> is simply no more time to dither.  The transition (or its failure) is
>> waiting on this CCWG's output.  The operational communities need to
>> know what their next available range(s) of action will be.
>>
>> Moreover, if the GAC really cannot accept this proposed compromise, it
>> seems at least to me that the hope of any compromise ever being
>> reached is roughly zero.  Therefore, the CCWG members should vote on
>> something and move on.  I vastly prefer consensus, but in the
>> community where I usually work we would have declared this consensus
>> rough some time ago and closed the discussion.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@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
>

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