Dear Paul Not at all This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC UNACCEPTABLE. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Why? You say that but you don’t explain it.
From my perspective, you can certainly have a 60% rule for the Board’s actions with regard to GAC advice AND a rule that does not let the GAC participate in any Empowered Community decision in which the EC seeks to challenge/change/modify what the Board has done. Please explain
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
Dear Andrew Dear All, I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to" Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO . She kindly confirmed that Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with Her Proposal after editorial amendments mentioned above. We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS Regards kAVOUSS
2016-02-02 15:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>: I agree with Andrew. Logically, there is no reason they are mutually exclusive. Politically, they are quite interdependent. For some the willingness to accept 60% might very well be contingent on Becky's proposal being adopted.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:14:31AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
THESE TWO PROPOSALS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This is a new wrinkle. I don't see how it's true. Becky's proposal is completely compatible with 50%+1, 60% (+1?), 2/3, or even 100% thresholds for the board's support. Can you please explain why you think they are mutually exclusive?
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