Dear Becky

Pls take out my proposal from the Table

I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL

Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Becky
Your proposal did not have such statement
Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance.
This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument
My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve ,
- 2/3
SIMPLE MAJORITY
I proposed a middfle ground 60%
You then proposed that
1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and
2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine
Now you implictly changing your proposal
Disagree TO THAT course of action
I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and rediscuss REC 11
Please kindly clarify your position
Once again if there would be any link between your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal from the Table and go ahead with your own proposal only
I also disagree with any new proposal .We can not discuss for days and day for receiving creative proposal
Let us be realistic rather than creative.
Best Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Becky
Your proposal did not have such statement
Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall acceptance.
This will cause considerable poblem and create serious of open-ended argument
My question to you was to clarify that your question did not refer toeither 60% or simple majority . Let us go back to the discussions on call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by Steve ,
- 2/3
SIMPLE MAJORITY
I proposed a middfle ground 60%
You then proposed that
1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to participate in ommunity empowering exercise when IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions exceeding its Mission and
2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your initial proposal and mine
Now you implictly changing your proposal
Disagreed
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night.

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 strictly limited to 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 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 such Board decisions.

·      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.

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold or simple majority for rejecting GAC Advice. It is not inconsistent with any of those outcomes.

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

_______________________________________________
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