Agree with Paul¹s last sentence. Thanks‹ J. On 2/2/16, 8:32 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
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 O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:20 AM To: 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 _______________________________________________ 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