2016-02-19 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:

James

This worries me. The CCWG proposals will change the relationships in ICANN, and will affect ccTLDs as well as the other stakeholders. The sands are shifting, yet, just like the GAC many ccTLD managers have not had the opportunity to fully consider the final draft.

I admit I remain skeptical that it is in the long-term interests of ICANN that the organisations seems so closely tied to partisan United States political interests, and ccTLD managers, PARTICULARLY those who are not members of the ccNSO (there are about 100 of these) must be given an opportunity to consider the proposal once it is final.

"Move forward as planned" you say. But planned by whom? That formulation seems less like bottom-up decision making that top-down.

We should simply take a deep breath, and stop warning each other, or getting angry, and take stock.

So, where ARE we exactly?

On 19/02/16 18:32, James Gannon wrote:

In that case we miss all our timelines and might as well just throw
everything that we have worked for out the window. This is a tactic, and
one which we must reject and move forward as planned.

-jg

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>
Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Thomas
Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>,
"accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>"
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Dear All,
Have we ever received a consensus objection or some form of wholesome
proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the other
constituencies I think we need to reflect and forward correctly .
Who knows till end of ICANN 55 howmany objections will be tableed?
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-19 19:23 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org
<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>:

I feel like I’m in the movie Ground Hog Day and every day is a 1 am
ICANN call. ____

__ __

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On
Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
*Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 1:17 PM
*To:* Phil Corwin
*Cc:* Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue____

__ __

Dear All,____

There is big difference between providing the rights for GAC as
decisional making entity and to exercise those rights____

GAC has not decided on whether they wish to exercise that right or
not,____

Supermajority and reconsideration of rejected Recommendation of
other constituencies and rejection of GAC Advice should have the
same threshold ____

If ONE GETS THE BENEF OF 2/3 MAJORITY the other should ALSO have the
same. BENEFIT ____

If GAC advice could be rejected by the Board with simple Majority
the Recommendation of other entities SHOULD also be rejected by
simple majority.____

If the Board gets into negotiation with GAC after it has rejected
its advice, they also get into negotiation with other constituencies
if their Recommendations were rejected .____

Currently there is a full imbalance between the PDP Recommendations
treatments and GAC advice____

The PDP Recommendations developed by supermajority in some
constituencies or by so-called SOFT CONSENSUS could only be rejected
by the Board with 2/3 MAJORITY BUT GAC advice ,normally decided by
consensus could only be rejected by SIMPLE MAJORITY ____

This is unfair.____

However, after rejection with such an imbalance criteria both cases
could be negotiated by Board and the two constituencies.____

I do not agree with the argument submitted with the risk that those
people submitting such argument may disserve the ethic of
correspondence and going out of the limit and not observing mutual
respect ____

Kavouss ____

__ __

2016-02-19 18:51 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com
<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:____

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 “should serve as a warning to us all”. ____

____

Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to
block the community’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 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____

*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____

*202-255-6172 <tel: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
<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@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@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@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 ____

____

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <tel:202-608-6097>
heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>

_______________________________________________
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____

____

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date:
02/14/16____

__ __

_______________________________________________
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