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
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