OH … so you are just objecting politically, not in practice. Sorry … disagree. It isn’t a double gain for an SO and a double loss for an AC. To the contrary, the GAC gets exactly what it wants – preferential consideration of its advice by the Board – and the community gets what it needs – a check on the possibility of GAC overreach that cannot be thwarted by the GAC as an EC member. Happily, many GAC members disagree with you – at least the two contributors from Denmark and the UK have spoken somewhat favorably about this solution. Likewise (and I’m reading his mind again) even Jorge seems to think this solution has promise. Cheers 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 10:14 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing Dear Paul Not at all This double gain for one SO and double loose for another SC UNACCEPTABLE. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 2 Feb 2016, at 16:08, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: 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...> <image001.png> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:48 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >; 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 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
