February 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

thank you
by Thomas Rickert Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

A big thank you to all of you who sent encouraging messages of thanks and support to us! We really do appreciate this feedback. Your co-chairs León, Mathieu and Thomas --- rickert.net

5 4

FW: Politico Morning Tech on Fadi v. Cruz/Secretary Pritzker on Appropriations Freeze
by Phil Corwin Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

FYI--The news items below are today's Politico Morning Tech. Sen. Cruz's response to CEO Chehade's answers to the letter sent to him on February 4th by three US Senators is rather predictable. In my personal opinion the CEO had an opportunity to close out this matter by providing focused responses to the letter's nine questions. Instead, he chose to respond in a narrative fashion that did not address several of the questions, so continuation of the dispute was predictable. To date, Sen. Cruz has not been reported to bring up the IANA transition in his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination. Depending on what occurs in next Tuesday's "Super Tuesday" round of multiple state primaries, he may elect to suspend his campaign and drop out of the race; if and when he does so, he would have a lot more time to spend on Senate business -- within a US Senate that is likely to be even more divided due to it being a Presidential election year, as well as the standoff regarding replacement of deceased Supreme Court Justice Scalia.. As for the report on Secretary Pritzker's remarks at the House Appropriations Committee, another report I saw on this did not characterize her response as ducking the effectiveness of the current appropriations language barring NTIA from facilitating the transition, which remains in effect until September 30th. Rather, in response to rep. Culberson's statement that he was not supportive of the IANA transition, the publication reported: Pritzker replied that her department hasn't received the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority transition plan yet, but any plan will be led by a multistakeholder group from the Internet community, not by governments. She said her department will conduct a "rigorous review" of the plan and a number of issues will be considered. They include resiliency of the domain name system, needs of the global customers, ensuring an open and free Internet and enhancing the multistakeholder model, she said. In any event, at the State of the Net Conference held in January 2015, NTIA head Larry Strickling was quite definitive about the effect of the transition freeze, stating (http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150127_ntia_cromnibus_bars_iana_transition_… ): The act does restrict NTIA from using appropriated dollars to relinquish our stewardship during fiscal year 2015 with respect to Internet domain name system functions. We take that seriously. Accordingly, we will not use appropriated funds to terminate the IANA functions contract with ICANN prior to the contract's current expiration date of September 30, 2015. Nor will we use appropriated dollars to amend the cooperative agreement with Verisign to eliminate NTIA's role in approving changes to the authoritative root zone file prior to September 30. On these points, there is no ambiguity.... I want to reiterate again that there is no hard and fast deadline for this transition. September 2015 has been a target date because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN expires. But this should not be seen as a deadline. If the community needs more time, we have the ability to extend the IANA functions contract for up to four years. It is up to the community to determine a timeline that works best for stakeholders as they develop a proposal that meets NTIA's conditions, but also works. The language of the FY 16 transition freeze is identical in effect to the language he commented on above. Now there is some wiggle room in his remarks in that NTIA might claim down the line that the transition requires no use of appropriated funds. Or the White House might intervene and, in his final days in office, President Obama could sign an Executive Order mandating the transition, although it would be subject to the immediate possibility of a lawsuit and court injunction as has occurred with some of his other EOs. All of this is a reminder that completion of the transition requires affirmative steps by the US Government and is subject to US politics. CRUZ CALLS OUT CHEHADE ON CHINA - Republican presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz isn't happy with outgoing ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade's explanation of his Internet governance work in China. The pair exchanged letters earlier this month about Chehade's plans to work with the Chinese government's World Internet Conference advisory board. On Tuesday evening, Cruz issued a statement challenging Chehade's version of events and calling on him to recuse himself from ICANN's work with China. "While Chehade continues to state that his first meeting won't take place until later this year, the Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People's Republic of China, reported on December 17, 2015 that, 'The advisory committee held its first meeting on the sidelines of the second World Internet Conference,'" Cruz said. "Chehade should recuse himself from all ICANN decisions that could impact the Chinese government, which include all negotiations and discussions pertaining to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority transition." - ICYMI: PRITZKER SIDESTEPS IANA TRANSITION QUESTION: Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker evaded a volley from the House Appropriations Subcommittee Tuesday about whether the 2015 government spending law blocks the Obama administration from moving forward with its plan to give up oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, Nancy reports. That question has been hotly debated, and subcommittee chairman John Culberson asserted that lawmakers have blocked the move for this year. Pritzker would only say her department would "work very closely" with lawmakers on the issue. "I understand the language that's been put in the appropriations [bills], and so what we're going to do is receive a plan and then we'll talk with you about it," she said. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4533/11679 - Release Date: 02/22/16

1 0

Regarding what happens if fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

Hello All, In response to the question from Brett Schaefer: >> I would hope that we could get explicit clarification and commitment from the Board that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not to become a decisional participant, that the Board would support lowering the thresholds for exercising all EC powers to avoid the requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2: “The thresholds presented in this document were determined based on this assessment. If fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds for consensus support may be adjusted. Thresholds would also have to be adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.” The Board’s earlier comment on this issue from Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows: "B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages 22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN today. The Board would not support lowering of any of these thresholds because these community powers represent the voice of the ICANN community. A reduction of the threshold could risk that a decision does not reflect the community’s will. While the thresholds seem well defined for the design of ICANN today, the Board recommends further defining the thresholds for exercising community powers in the event that the number of SOs or ACs change. Leaving this issue for future consideration raises the potential for renegotiation of the community thresholds. This potential for renegotiation adds a level of instability and a lack of predictability. As a result, the Board recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds identified in the Proposal are based on the current structure; and (2) identifying the percentages that will be applied in the event that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future." When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the CCWG does not want to set percentages and has agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change. We will further discuss this issue when it becomes clear who the future participants will be, and whether fewer than five of ICANN’s SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

6 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding what happens if fewer than five o f ICANNâs SOs and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

The Bylaws governing such thresholds are part of the Empowered Community creation and thus Fundamental Bylaws. They will require the approval of the Empowered Community to change. Alan At 24/02/2016 12:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >That's fine Jordan, but just to be clear, such >change(reduction/increase in threshold as >applicable) will only occur when the community >come together to agree again right? i.e the >current CCWG proposal does not say if the >"empowered community" becomes 4, then the >thresholds automatically reduces. I hope that is >not what you are communicating. > >Regards >On 24 Feb 2016 06:22, "Jordan Carter" ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >Seun, all, > >If there are 4 decisional SOs/ACs instead of 5, >then the thresholds all need to change. > >The ones that currently have a threshold of 4 would then require unanimity. > >That would be totally unacceptable. It is not >consistent with our work to date or with our >report. The report specifically notes that a >change from 5 eligible decisional participants >leads to threshold changes for this very reason. > >Best >Jordan > >On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >I believe this makes sense and can be noted >during implementation. However, IMO a reduction >of participating SO/AC in the "empowered >community" from 5 to 4 should not cause any need >for change since none of the exercise of >community powers requires more than a threshold >4 and considering that 4 still represents over >50%(4/7) of the ICANN community we should be >fine. So the current threshold proposed from >paragraph 25 to 47 on Annex 2 could still be >maintained (ofcourse without any reduction) > >However anything that goes below 4, I expect >would make the model impractical and require a complete overhaul. > >Regards >On 24 Feb 2016 04:39, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> wrote: >Hello All, > >In response to the question from Brett Schaefer: > > >> I would hope that we could get explicit > clarification and commitment from the Board > that, if the GAC cannot decide or chooses not > to become a decisional participant, that the > Board would support lowering the thresholds for > exercising all EC powers to avoid the > requirement for SOAC unanimous support to exercise those powers. > >The Board supports the language in the report, at Page 72 of Annex 2: > >âThe thresholds presented in this document >were determined based on this assessment. If >fewer than five of ICANNâs SOs and ACs agree >to be Decisional Participants, these thresholds >for consensus support may be >adjusted. Thresholds would also have to be >adjusted if ICANN changes to have more SOs or ACs.â > > >The Boardâs earlier comment on this issue from >Page 5 of our 14 December 2015 Comments to the >Third Draft Proposal from the CCWG is as follows: > >"B. Board Comments and Supporting Rationale on Further Defining Thresholds > >The thresholds as set out in the Proposal (Pages >22-23) seem well defined for the design of ICANN >today. The Board would not support lowering of >any of these thresholds because these community >powers represent the voice of the ICANN >community. A reduction of the threshold could >risk that a decision does not reflect the communityâs will. > >While the thresholds seem well defined for the >design of ICANN today, the Board recommends >further defining the thresholds for exercising >community powers in the event that the number of >SOs or ACs change. Leaving this issue for >future consideration raises the potential for >renegotiation of the community >thresholds. This potential for renegotiation >adds a level of instability and a lack of >predictability. As a result, the Board >recommends (1) clarifying that the thresholds >identified in the Proposal are based on the >current structure; and (2) identifying the >percentages that will be applied in the event >that there is a change in the number of SOs or ACs in the future." > >When we previously discussed this with the CCWG, >we understood from Page 72 of Annex 2 that the >CCWG does not want to set percentages and has >agreed to revisit the thresholds if the number of participants change. > >We will further discuss this issue when it >becomes clear who the future participants will >be, and whether fewer than five of ICANNâs SOs >and ACs agree to be Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >-- >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 | ><mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > >Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

8 7

FW: ICYMI: RELEASE: Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate
by Paul Rosenzweig Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)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=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Novack, Phil (Cruz) On Behalf Of Press, Cruz (Cruz) Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 6:25 PM Subject: RELEASE: Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate UNITED STATES SENATE Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Cruz Press Office: 202-228-7561 Rachael Slobodien <mailto:rachael_slobodien@cruz.senate.gov> rachael_slobodien(a)cruz.senate.gov Phil Novack: <mailto:phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov> phil_novack(a)cruz.senate.gov February 23, 2015 Sen. Cruz: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade Is Misleading the United States Senate Chehade should recuse himself from all ICANN decisions that could impact the Chinese government WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued the following statement today regarding a letter that Cruz, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) received from Fadi Chehade, CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on Friday. Chehade's <http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160219_ICANN_CEOLetter.pdf > letter was in reply to one that <http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2588> Cruz, Lankford, and Lee sent on February 4 raising serious concerns and requesting information regarding Mr. Chehade's involvement with the World Internet Conference, which is organized by the Chinese government, a regime notorious for its censorship of the Internet and criminalization of online speech. "Either the World Internet Conference and the People's Republic of China have misreported the events that took place during their own conference or Fadi Chehade isn't being completely honest with the United States Senate," said Sen. Cruz. "While Chehade continues to state that his first meeting won't take place until later this year, the Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the People's Republic of China, reported on December 17, 2015 that, 'The advisory committee held its first meeting on the sidelines of the second World Internet Conference in Wuzhen of east China's Zhejiang Province. Jack Ma, founder of China's Internet giant Alibaba, and Fadi Chehade, president and CEO of ICANN, act as co-chairman of the advisory committee.' It should also be noted that Chehade has admitted that he has entered into an arrangement while still serving as the CEO of ICANN and performing under a contract with the United States government, through which his future travel costs to the Chinese government's state-sponsored World Internet Conference will be compensated. Travel compensation from the Chinese government can be a form of personal conflict of interest, which could impair Chehade's ability to act impartially and in the best interest of the government when performing under the contract. As such, Chehade should recuse himself from all ICANN decisions that could impact the Chinese government, which include all negotiations and discussions pertaining to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition." ###

4 3

poll result and next steps
by Thomas Rickert Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

All, Several of you have raised questions and concerns about the process used for coming to a conclusion on the language in Annex 2. We have explained why we have given the CCWG the opportunity to express views on the various inputs that we received, reflect on the potential consequences and discuss a way forward. For those interested in the details, we would kindly refer you to the recording and transcript <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58721088>. The fact is that concerns with the language in Annex 2 have not only been expressed by the Board, so we would urge everyone to consult the publicly archived mailing list as well as the mp3 and transcript of the call earlier today. We understand and share the view that work in the CCWG has been, and still is, exhausting and not as straightforward or predictable as one would hope. However, work in this CCWG is not like work on projects in a commercial environment – the journey to consensus is painful, lengthy and, yes, it takes detours. Stumbling forward characterizes the multi-stakeholder model and has been part of our work for the past 14 months. I guess we would all have hoped that there are no bumps during the last mile, but that is just how our group functions at times. We would like to congratulate and thank all of you for expressing your views on this matter. Hearing all views, particularly those that are controversial, adds to the credibility of the product of our work because this allowed all colleagues on the calls to make an informed decision on how to proceed. On the call, we suggested looking at two alternatives, both of which have been thoroughly discussed. We then proceeded to polling and allowed everyone on the call to chime in. There has been a debate on the list subsequently about who could participate in the poll and who could not. You will remember that we clarified that, while everyone could join the poll, an analysis of the results would be conducted after the call. Yet, we wanted to collect all "raw data" at the time of the call. We have now taken a look at the outcome of the poll and confirm that - focusing on members and participants only and focusing on members in particular - we have broad support for removal of the language in (2). A statistical analysis can be found below in this e-mail. As such, the updated Paragraph 72 language is: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects, with the following exception: Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only either after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (1) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. The discussion has shown that parts of the group have opted for this way forward after thorough discussion of all consequences of what we had in our report. Some of you might be disappointed with this, but please remember that we always aimed to be as inclusive as possible and to work as consensus-driven as possible while coming to closure as quickly as feasible. That is the co-Chairs' mandate. Today, the CCWG had the opportunity to choose the option to ship the report in its 19 February draft version. It was in the CCWG's hands to ignore the issue that was raised by the Board and supported by others. The CCWG has chosen to take a different approach and the co-Chairs certainly cannot ignore the CCWG's wishes. One final point: Some on the email list have asked questions about decision thresholds if the number of decisional participants in the Empowered Community changes from the expected five SOs/ACs. We draw your attention to the text in Paragraphs 73 and 74 of Annex 2 in the 19 February draft. This text explicitly notes that any change in the number of decisional participants would lead to a reconsideration of the thresholds. A simple understanding of this is that if the number of decisional participants falls, so will the required level of support for those powers that today require 4 SOs/ACs to support their use. This is not changed by the decisions made today about para 72. We will now proceed and send the finalized report, without (2), to the Chartering Organizations for approval. Thank you, Thomas for León and Mathieu (who is on leave) Results of polling from February 23rd 2016 call of the CCWG-Accountability Analysis on the 4 questions with 56 casting votes from the CCWG call of February 23rd: · Members o ALAC – all 5 present o ASO – 2 of 4 present o ccNSO – 3 of 5 present o GAC – 4 of 5 present o gNSO – 5 OF 5 present o SSAC – none of 2 present o Total present 19 of 26 or 70% · Poll #1 – Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? o 11 of 56 = 20% total o 2 of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8% · Poll #2 – Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? o 30 of 56 = 54% total o 8 of 19 Members = 42%, 8 of 26 = 32% · Poll #3 – Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (“If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question”)? o 38 of 56 = 68% total o 11 of 19 Members = 58%, 11 of 26 = 42% · Poll #4 – Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? o 14 of 56 = 25% total o 2 of 19 Members = 11%, 2 of 26 = 8%

9 10

Confusion and my position
by Burr, Becky Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

People are very confused about timing and facts here. The entire paragraph that contains (1) and (2) was put in at roughly the same time (Feb 15/16), based on the same discussions. The last stable consensus we had prior to that was the top of paragraph 72, which reads something like: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects. The “with one exception” and language that follows was put in in response to the Board intervention of 13 February. I have very mixed feelings about this. Personally, I feel that the folks opposing removal of (2) have the more principled argument, looking across the entire history of this process, the special status of GAC Advice, and considering the change from single member to sole designator, and the increased importance of Board spill that results. That said, I also feel that an IRP will always be a better option for dealing with a single issue, that pattern and practice violations that lead to a loss of confidence will not arise in the context of GAC Advice exclusively, and so the removal of phrase (2) creates a corner case that is so remote that I am extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 9:04 AM To: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer(a)sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>, Eberhard Lisse <el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Roelof, Of course, the opposite could apply just as easily. We had consensus on the issue until the Board intervention – after that part of the comment period was closed – and we do not have a consensus to remove that language as requested by the Board. My read from the comments on the e-mail and the chat is that some, perhaps much, of the support for removing the language is based not on the merits of the Board’s argument (since they really made no substantive argument), but on the desire to conclude this process as quickly as possible and the fear denying the Board would extend this debate. Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&…> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:49 AM To: el(a)lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results Where it leaves us, I think is clear. We just follow our common practice: if we have no (rough) consensus on inserting a particular clause or solution in our proposal, we do not put it in. Item (2) was inserted a few weeks ago, we do not have anything close to rough consensus to support that. So it should be taken out. Best, Roelof On 23-02-16 12:39, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Dr%20Eberhard%20W%20Lisse>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of el(a)lisse.na<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bel@lisse.na>> wrote: >Grace, > >thank you. > >Dear Co-Chairs, > >As mentioned in the chat I had to leave after one hour (of which 22 >were taken by a summary, for which I expected an Executive Summary of >2 minutes or less, by the way) as I have to work for a living. > >Just for the record, sending it to the SOs is not the same as >supporting it, hence your careful language reflects my proxy with the >exception of Poll 4 where he only polled as participant but should >have also polled my member proxy in favor of submitting as is. > >That said, it is disturbing that 11 Board members and even staff >participated in the poll. > >Never mind the expected outcome from the ACs. > >It is however clear that we do NOT have Consensus as required by our >Charter. > >So, where does this leave us? > >el > > >On 2016-02-23 12:26, Grace Abuhamad wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> To ensure full transparency around the polling, the staff have >> reviewed the recording for the call and crosschecked the results. >> The Adobe Connect recording is available here for your viewing as >> well: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.adobeconnect.com…>. >> >> >> >> Please note that the instructions regarding participation in the polls >> were as follows: >> >> · Anyone on the call was invited to participate in the poll >> (members & participants). >> >> · To participate, participants in the Adobe Connect room used >> either a red or green tick to respond to the poll question. >> >> · Those on audio-only could express their position over the phone. >> >> · After the polls, analysis would be conducted to assess >> participation from CCWG members (for the purposes of these results, the >> members¹ names are in bold font). >> >> >> >> The Chairs conducted four polls in a group that varied between 85-90 >> participants. The text used as the basis for the polls is Paragraph >> 72 of the CCWG report (see attached slide for the text as well as >> the 2^nd bullet highlighted in red). The first two poll questions >> were based on objections and the second two poll questions were >> based on expressions of support. >> >> >> *Summary of results: * >> >> >> >> · 11 objections to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red >> on the slide) >> >> o (2 CCWG member objections) >> >> >> >> · 27 objections to sending the report forward as it is currently, >> with the full text in Paragraph 72 >> >> o (8 CCWG member objections, including all ALAC members) >> >> >> >> · 36 support removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph >> 72 (in red on the slide) >> >> o (10 CCWG members supporting) >> >> >> >> · 14 support sending the report forward as it is currently, with >> the full text in Paragraph 72 >> >> o (2 CCWG members supporting) >> >> >> *Detailed results: * >> >> >> >> *Poll #1* Who objects to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in >> red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board >> action in question²)? >> >> >> >> 1. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant) >> >> 2. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant) >> >> 3. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant) >> >> 4. James Gannon (NCSG Participant) >> >> 5. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant) >> >> 6. Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant) >> >> 7. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant) >> >> 8. *Robin Gross*(NCSG Member) >> >> 9. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant) >> >> 10.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant) >> >> 11.*Eberhard Lisse*(ccNSO Member) >> >> >> >> *Poll #2* Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering >> Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with >> the full text in Paragraph 72)? >> >> >> >> 1. *Alan Greenberg*(ALAC Member) >> >> 2. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 3. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 4. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member) >> >> 5. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 6. David McAuley (GNSO Participant) >> >> 7. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 8. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 9. Jorge Cancio (GAC Participant) >> >> 10.*Julia Wolman*(GAC Member) >> >> 11.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant) >> >> 12.*Leon Sanchez*(ALAC Member) >> >> 13.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 14.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 15.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 16.*Olga Cavalli*(GAC Member) >> >> 17.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant) >> >> 18.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant) >> >> 19.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant) >> >> 20.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 21.*Roelof Meijer*(ccNSO Member) >> >> 22.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 23.Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff Liaison) >> >> 24.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant) >> >> 25.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 26.*Sebastien Bachollet*(ALAC Member) >> >> 27.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant) >> >> 28.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff Participant) >> >> 29.*Tijani Ben Jemaa*(ALAC Member) >> >> >> >> *Poll #3* Who supports removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in >> Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to >> challenge the Board action in question²)? >> >> >> >> 1. *Alan**Greenberg* (ALAC Member) >> >> 2. Annaliese Williams (GAC Participant) >> >> 3. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 4. Avri Doria (NCSG Participant) >> >> 5. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 6. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC Member) >> >> 7. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 8. David McAuley (GNSO Participant) >> >> 9. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 10.Finn Petersen (GAC Participant) >> >> 11.George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 12.Greg Shatan (IPC Participant) >> >> 13.*James Bladel*(RrSG Member) >> >> 14.*Julia**Wolman* (GAC Member) >> >> 15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC Participant) >> >> 16.Keith Drazek (RySG Participant) >> >> 17.*Leon**Sanchez* (ALAC Member) >> >> 18.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 19.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 20.Mark Carvell (GAC Participant) >> >> 21.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 22.Mary Uduma (ccNSO Participant) >> >> 23.Niels Ten Oever (Participant) >> >> 30.*Olga**Cavalli* (GAC Member) >> >> 24.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant) >> >> 25.Paul Szyndler (ccNSO Participant) >> >> 26.Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant) >> >> 31.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant) >> >> 27.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 28.*Roelof**Meijer* (ccNSO Member) >> >> 29.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 30.Sabine Meyer (GAC Participant) >> >> 31.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant) >> >> 32.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant) >> >> 33.*Steve DelBianco*(CSG Member) >> >> 34.*Sebastien**Bachollet* (ALAC Member) >> >> 35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff) >> >> 36.*Tijani**Ben Jemaa* (ALAC Member) >> >> >> >> *Poll #4* Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations >> as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in >> Paragraph 72)? >> >> >> >> 1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG Participant) >> >> 2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant) >> >> 3. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant) >> >> 4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant) >> >> 5. James Gannon (NCSG Participant) >> >> 6. *Jordan Carter*(ccNSO Member) >> >> 7. Martin Boyle (ccNSO Participant) >> >> 8. Matthew Shears (NCSG Participant) >> >> 9. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant) >> >> 10.Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant) >> >> 11.Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant) >> >> 12.*Robin**Gross* (NCSG Member) >> >> 13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant) >> >> 14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> > >-- >Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >el(a)lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) >PO Box 8421 \ / >Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…>

10 15

Poll results
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

Dear all, To ensure full transparency around the polling, the staff have reviewed the recording for the call and crosschecked the results. The Adobe Connect recording is available here for your viewing as well: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/> . Please note that the instructions regarding participation in the polls were as follows: · Anyone on the call was invited to participate in the poll (members & participants). · To participate, participants in the Adobe Connect room used either a red or green tick to respond to the poll question. · Those on audio-only could express their position over the phone. · After the polls, analysis would be conducted to assess participation from CCWG members (for the purposes of these results, the members¹ names are in bold font). The Chairs conducted four polls in a group that varied between 85-90 participants. The text used as the basis for the polls is Paragraph 72 of the CCWG report (see attached slide for the text as well as the 2nd bullet highlighted in red). The first two poll questions were based on objections and the second two poll questions were based on expressions of support. Summary of results: · 11 objections to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide) o (2 CCWG member objections) · 27 objections to sending the report forward as it is currently, with the full text in Paragraph 72 o (8 CCWG member objections, including all ALAC members) · 36 support removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide) o (10 CCWG members supporting) · 14 support sending the report forward as it is currently, with the full text in Paragraph 72 o (2 CCWG members supporting) Detailed results: Poll #1 Who objects to removing the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question²)? 1. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant) 2. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant) 3. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant) 4. James Gannon (NCSG Participant) 5. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant) 6. Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant) 7. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant) 8. Robin Gross (NCSG Member) 9. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant) 10. Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant) 11. Eberhard Lisse (ccNSO Member) Poll #2 Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 1. Alan Greenberg (ALAC Member) 2. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant) 3. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant) 4. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC Member) 5. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant) 6. David McAuley (GNSO Participant) 7. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant) 8. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant) 9. Jorge Cancio (GAC Participant) 10. Julia Wolman (GAC Member) 11. Keith Drazek (RySG Participant) 12. Leon Sanchez (ALAC Member) 13. Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant) 14. Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant) 15. Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant) 16. Olga Cavalli (GAC Member) 17. Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant) 18. Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant) 19. Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant) 20. Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant) 21. Roelof Meijer (ccNSO Member) 22. Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant) 23. Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff Liaison) 24. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant) 25. Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant) 26. Sebastien Bachollet (ALAC Member) 27. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant) 28. Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff Participant) 29. Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC Member) Poll #3 Who supports removing the language in the 2nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question²)? 1. Alan Greenberg (ALAC Member) 2. Annaliese Williams (GAC Participant) 3. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board Participant) 4. Avri Doria (NCSG Participant) 5. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Participant) 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC Member) 7. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board Participant) 8. David McAuley (GNSO Participant) 9. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board Participant) 10. Finn Petersen (GAC Participant) 11. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board Participant) 12. Greg Shatan (IPC Participant) 13. James Bladel (RrSG Member) 14. Julia Wolman (GAC Member) 15. Kavouss Arasteh (GAC Participant) 16. Keith Drazek (RySG Participant) 17. Leon Sanchez (ALAC Member) 18. Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Participant) 19. Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board Participant) 20. Mark Carvell (GAC Participant) 21. Markus Kummer (ICANN Board Participant) 22. Mary Uduma (ccNSO Participant) 23. Niels Ten Oever (Participant) 30. Olga Cavalli (GAC Member) 24. Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC Participant) 25. Paul Szyndler (ccNSO Participant) 26. Pedro da Silva (GAC Participant) 31. Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Participant) 27. Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board Participant) 28. Roelof Meijer (ccNSO Member) 29. Ron da Silva (ICANN Board Participant) 30. Sabine Meyer (GAC Participant) 31. Seun Ojedeji (ALAC Participant) 32. Steve Crocker (ICANN Board Participant) 33. Steve DelBianco (CSG Member) 34. Sebastien Bachollet (ALAC Member) 35. Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff) 36. Tijani Ben Jemaa (ALAC Member) Poll #4 Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in Paragraph 72)? 1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG Participant) 2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG Participant) 3. Edward Morris (NCSG Participant) 4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG Participant) 5. James Gannon (NCSG Participant) 6. Jordan Carter (ccNSO Member) 7. Martin Boyle (ccNSO Participant) 8. Matthew Shears (NCSG Participant) 9. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP Participant) 10. Milton Mueller (NCSG Participant) 11. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG Participant) 12. Robin Gross (NCSG Member) 13. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO Participant) 14. Tatiana Tropina (NCSG Participant)

26 76

Understanding of Amended Paragraph 72 of Annex 2
by Phil Corwin Feb. 24, 2016

Feb. 24, 2016

Now that the Co-Chairs have just issued their decision on how to proceed, I want to return to a subject that I first raised in the chat room on the call held twelve hours ago. Section 72 of Annex 2 will now read [bracketed text in red to be deleted]: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are in support and no more than one objects, with the following exception: · Where the power to be exercised is recalling the entire Board for implementing GAC advice, the reduced threshold would apply only [either (1)] after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws[, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question]. If the Empowered Community has brought such an IRP and does not prevail, the Empowered Community may not exercise its power to recall the entire the Board solely on the basis of the matter decided by the IRP. It may, however, exercise that power based on other grounds. As I read the remaining text, the first paragraph establishes the general principle that in any situation where the Empowered Community proposes to challenge the Board's implementation of GAC consensus advice, using any of the available community powers, the GAC would be barred from being a decisional participant, and that where the threshold for taking action is four SO/Ac votes it would drop to three. I would note in passing that the voting threshold for exercise of a community power is set at four (per items 46-70) for only three community powers: 1. Reject a proposed Operating Plan/Strategic Plan/Budget 2. Recall the entire Board of Directors 3. Reject an ICANN Board decision relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of any PTI separation process Paragraph 2 then goes on to create an exception for that reduced threshold situation -- applicable only to removal of the Board in its entirety, and not to rejection of an operating plan/budget or a review of IANA functions where the Board has acted pursuant to GAC consensus advice. For Board removal in its entirety the EC would first be required to pursue an IRP - and if the IRP determined that the Board implementation of GAC consensus advice had not violated the Bylaws the reduced voting threshold would not apply, and the matter could not be further pursued unless there were other, non-Bylaws grounds for pursuing it. In the latter instance (non-Bylaws ground), the threshold for full Board removal would be four votes (unanimity of all SOs and ACs other than the GAC, which would remain non-decisional). Are we agreed on that view so far? Now here is where it gets interesting, in regard to matters of Board implementation of GAC consensus advice about which the community was aggrieved, and regardless of whether such implementation involved an alleged Bylaws violation and was therefore subject to an IRP --- If the community sought to exercise power 4a contained at section 55 - "Remove an individual Board Director nominated by an SO or AC (and appointed by the Empowered Community)" - none of the above in para 72 would be relevant because the majority of the nominating SO/AC could do that on its own by an internal ¾ majority vote after inviting and considering comments from all SOs/ACs (noting that it's not entirely clear whether the GAC would be barred from commenting, although it's of little relevance since the electing SO/AC is in no way bound by the opinions of the others). That removal could include the Chairman of the Board if he/she was the nominee of a particular SO or AC. If the community sought to exercise power 4b contained at section 58 - "Remove an individual Board Director nominated by the Nominating Committee (and appointed by the Empowered Community)" - the lowered threshold requirement in para 72 would not be relevant because the required threshold support is "Three support, and no more than one objection", and the GAC would be barred as a decisional participant if the challenge pertained to the Board member voting to implement GAC consensus advice. Again, this power is available to remove the Chair if he/she was a NomCom appointee (Note: I have checked the ICANN Bylaws and any Board member other the President/CEO, regardless of how they were placed on the Board, can be elected to the Chair or Vice Chair position). Putting this all together, even after the CCWG's Co-Chairs decision to proceed with striking clause 2 of the second paragraph of section 72, the Empowered Community could still remove the Board Chairman and Vice Chair (and sequentially chosen replacement Chairs and Vice Chairs, if they failed to lead the Board to reverse its decision implementing GAC advice), and could remove one or more additional members of the Board, whether placed on the Board by an SO/AC or by the NomCom, so long as such actions were taken individually and not collectively. And the community, if the aggrieved view was sufficiently widespread, could collectively remove (and then replace) sufficient numbers of Board members to compel a reversal of the implementation of GAC consensus advice. Indeed, there is no limitation placed on the number of Board members who may be removed via community powers 4a and 4b so long as each is a discrete assertion of those powers pertaining to a particular Board member. If I am correct on this interpretation then, the removal of clause 2 may not be all that significant. If anyone believes that my interpretation of any or all of this is incorrect - especially Board or GAC members - I would urge them to voice disagreement now. I would also welcome expressions of support for this interpretation. If you have read this far, thanks. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

5 8

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -
by Fadi Chehade Feb. 23, 2016

Feb. 23, 2016

Alan, that is my understanding as well. There is a solution to this dialog that can maintain the fundamental balance of the multistakeholder model When the IRP rules that the Board has violated the Bylaws/Articles in accepting GAC advice, the threshold can be 3. When there is no IRP ruling, or no allegation that the Board has violated the Bylaws, keep the threshold at the same level that it was set in the prior versions of the report – 4. Fadi From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:17 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - The Supplemental Proposal says that the threshold CAN be reduced to three under two conditions: (1) after an IRP has found that, in implementing GAC advice, the Board acted inconsistently with the ICANN Bylaws, or (2) if the IRP is not available to challenge the Board action in question. My recollection is that the Board proposed only (1). Becky (and/or perhaps others) proposed (2), but I do not recall it being accepted by the Board or by the CCWG as a whole. Alan At 19/02/2016 04:38 PM, Jordan Carter wrote: Ok. If Steve Crocker could also confirm that his understanding is the same, that would be very helpful. On the overall point - the board has already made its view on that question clear. Steve's email doesn't reference the GPI test that is the only basis the Board has set out to object to ccwg proposals, and which it has invoked prior. The intervention thus has two effects. It is a source of uncertainty, because it isn't clear. And it is a source of delay, because the intent and the group's response to it has to be clarified. Once again, we face a further delay thanks to the way the ICANN board has chosen to behave. I guess I wish I could say I was surprised, or disappointed - but that's long gone. I'm just confused: what is the end game here? If anyone knows, please feel free to share. Jordan On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Becky - There was another thread on this from Alan, but wanted to confirm in this thread too that this is the correct understanding of the Boardâ€™s concern. Thanks, Sam From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:55 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Boardâ€™s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold â€€“ could apply where an IRP determines that the Boardâ€™s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> [[]]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_e…> From: Phil Corwin [ mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it â€œshould serve as a warning to us allâ€. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the communityâ€™s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. Best. Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=…> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-ID: <image001.png(a)01D16B17.90D93970<mailto:image001.png@01D16B17.90D93970>> X-Attachment-Id: 8ad2965fd910ef78_0.1 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

17 34