*Aresteh Proposal*: Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is stricly limited to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016 2016-02-02 22:56 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
No worries Kavouss, that is why I listed Malcolm’s suggestion separately.
*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: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz> Cc: "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, " acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11
Dear Becky, Pls kindly maintain my proposal as submitted without any change. I have noted that someone wishes to add to that I disagree. However, should you decide to have a third proposal I wish to know the author of that proposal m
*Aresteh Proposal*:
Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is stricly limited to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016
Kavouss
2016-02-02 22:51 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Becky M
2016-02-02 22:48 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
I think you are correct Brett, I’ve just got IRP brain.
*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@heritage.org> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11
Becky,
Why would your proposal be restricted to the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws”? What if GAC consensus advice results in a Board decision that would amend the bylaws or implement some other serious change that is not necessarily in violation of the bylaws? I think the same provision should apply.
I propose this version that deletes the “Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws” clause and slightly modifies the final sentence that also referenced violating the bylaws:
“*The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions arising from such advice.”*
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&c...>
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:26 PM *To:* Accountability Community *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of proposals discussed last night in context of Rec. #11
I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Apologies if I have mischaracterized the contributions made by Kavouss and/or Malcolm
*Aresteh Proposal*:
Modify Rec. #11/Annex 11 to provide that GAC Advice supported by consensus, defined as general agreement in the absence of a formal objection, may be rejected only by a vote of at least *60%* of the Board. All other requirements (e.g., rationale to be provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal is to modify Recommendation 11 Annex 11 without any change to Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02 February 2016
*Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold*: Add language to ensure that supermajority requirement creates no new expectation of approval or otherwise modify the Board’s standard of review of GAC Advice.
*Burr Proposal*:
? Modify Rec #1/Annex 1: Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23.
*The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the Empowered Community’s consideration of the exercise a community power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice in a manner alleged to violate the Bylaws. In such cases, the GAC remains free to participate in community deliberations in an advisory capacity, but its views will not count towards or against otherwise agreed thresholds needed to initiate a conference call, convene a Community Forum, or exercise a specific Community Power. This carve out preserves the ICANN Board’s unique obligation to work with the GAC try to find a mutually acceptable solution to implementation of GAC Advice supported by consensus (as defined in Rec. #11) while protecting the community’s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause ICANN to violate its Bylaws.*
? Modify the Table in Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and add the following language to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs:
*The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where **the GAC may not participate as a Decisional AC because the community power is proposed to be used to challenge the Board’s implementation of GAC 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. *
*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>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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_li...>