Dear Kavous

 

I have no interest in intimidating you.  I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts. 

 

For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.”  This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations.

 

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

 

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Eberhard Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

 

Dear Paul,

I do not know what are you talking about?

Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.

Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the,

Be kind and friend

Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work

We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion.

Best Regards

Kavouss

 

2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

Dear Kavous

I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion.  You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose.  If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple. 

 

Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it …

 

Paul

 

 

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM
To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>
Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; epilisse@gmail.com; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>


Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

 

Dear Paul

Pls kindly do not use that type of issue.

Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement .

This is the remedial point

Regards

Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone


On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:

All,

Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. 

 

Let me just be clear:

 

We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. 

 

Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. 

 

Kind regards,

Thomas Rickert

 


Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs).  But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.

 

For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:

 

1)     Change from Single Member to Single Designator

2)     GAC advice gets a 60% threshold

3)     ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all

 

All of those are things that I’m unhappy with.  So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?

 

Paul

 

 

From: epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM
To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

 

I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.

In any case let me place the current state on the record:

Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.

But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.

These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.

Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.

In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.

Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.


el


--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini


On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:

+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.  

 

_______________________________________________
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