As I said, it was not my conclusion but that of the IRP. I am sure you can read that decision .... P 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 -----Original Message----- From: Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:40 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: 'Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams' <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Mr. Rosenzweig, Your initial remark, which I assumed was not in jest, was that the GAC had interfered. I assume you'd like to convey to others what that interference was. If you could identify the act of interference that would be helpful. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
As I said before, perhaps not clearly enough for you, I have no view on the matter. The IRP (that you seem to want to ignore) did, however, have a view. I would not want to attempt to summarize it for fear of not doing it justice. Indeed, the entire opinion is worth reading. If you read that and do not think that the IRP concluded that GAC had acted improperly, so be it ... but no fair reading of the
opinion could interpret it that way.