To the best of my knowledge, the GNSO has not passed a formal motion saying that they will participate in the Empowered Community (EC), and I *KNOW* that the ALAC has not. I believe that the same is true for the ccNSO.

If and when we ratify Recommendation 1 describing the EC as including the ALAC (as we have in our comments to the earlier drafts), we will de facto have accepted out participation

Alan

At 01/03/2016 11:37 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:

Kavouss,

I am mildly surprised that you, as someone who has been very protective of the right of the GAC to make its own decisions, is not upset with the determination by the CCWG to make GAC a decisional participant by default before it has actually made this decision for itself.

Best,

Brett

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Dear All,
Yo are too worried about something that we still do not know how it happens
The text approriate and clearly mention that if the No of Decision Making SO and AC changed the threshold should be adjusted
That is more than sufficient.
People need to refrain concentrating/ focussing on a particular AC nor envisage all possible senarios.
We are not wtritting Bylaws at this stage .
There is ample time and competent individuals to look at the matter once happened.
Let us discontinue this counterproductive discussion
Regards
Kavouss

2016-03-01 16:32 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:

From: Jordan Carter [ mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz]
Sorry, wrong. The assumption has been made and it is the same as the assumption that was made in the Third, Second and First Draft Reports. GAC is going to be listed in the fundamental bylaws as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community.

Huh? See below

The only way that could change would be if GAC advised it did not wish to do so. Same with any other group.

Which they haven’t done yet. Ergo, my statement below was correct.

On 1 March 2016 at 13:16, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

Whether one agrees with Brett or not, the fact remains that GAC has explicitly told us that it is _undecided_ on whether to be a decisional participant or not. Therefore, until we get a positive decision from them, we cannot assume that they will be by default. Greg S. was saying essentially the same thing:

Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org

_______________________________________________
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