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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
