Dear Co-Chairs, due to the formatting it is extremely difficult to read, but when I look it up I find http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/know+where+one+is+coming+from stating: "to understand someone's motivation; to understand and relate to someone's position" so this is hardly offensive, in fact quite the opposite. I am not so much concerned as to who's name is attached to the 60% (or any) proposal and as we are supposed to be consensus driven it is not, as someone else has written already not a motion in the sense of a deliberative organization to be debated, voted and passed, rejected or withdrawn. If it is good we can take it up no matter who said it first. The Burr/Hutty language does not amend (change) the 60% proposal, it accompanies it. el On 2016-02-03 10:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
*1. REPLY TO MIKE* Dear Mr. Chartier ( you called me Mr. Arasteh then I have to do and apply the same rule calling you Mr. Chartier9 Thanky you for your message
You said at the begining of your message the following
*Quote*
/"Dear Mr. Arasteh,____/ /I understand where you are coming from."/ Unquote Unfortunately this is not a friendly question and perhaps offensive ,if not insultation I never ever asked and even know where are you come from.This is not my business not business of CCWG . I FULLY RESPECT EVERY AND ALL NATIONS AND SIMILARLY EVERY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM, AND WHAT AFFILIATION THEY HAVE . The purpose of the CCWG is not raising the question of or statement relating to nationaly , race, colour, religeion, conviction ,political adherance and so on. We are just a group of freinds ,colleagues ,getting together and collaborating with each other to contribute to the ICANN accountability. Therefore, I consider, your question was not only hostile, offensive but totally irrelevant and I therefore respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct .
As for the substance of your views on the alternatives 7 options , I fully respect your views as I respects views of others. I think every one of us must
*_2. Reply to Grec_* *_Thank you for your message_* *_You said the following:_* *_Quote:_*
*"Furthermore, I would note that the proposal, although originally made by Kavouss in a long and multi-branched email string, received _no attention_ until I placed it in an entirely new email and brought it to the specific attention of the CCWG. It was my email that initiated discussion of the 60% proposal. Therefore, I think it should more appropriately be called my proposal in any event. _I graciously allowed it to be called "Kavouss's proposal"; _however, based on the facts, that is clearly a misnomer, since the work of the group is based on my email. I would therefore request that the 60% proposal henceforth be called "Greg's Proposal."* *Unquote* *Dear Grec* *What you have stated does not reflect the reality.Befroe I started my e-mails ,painted by you as **multi-branched email string, I raised the issue in a CCWG CALL..havind said that , in my view , it does not matter who proposed the option, I am just interested in the proposal and not the author of the proposal.* *Thank you for your generosity to allow that the proposal be called my proposal ,But I have withdrawn my proposal therefroe your gracious action and generosity is no longer relevant as I HAVE NO PROPOSAL.* *FR ME DOESN^T MATTER IF TAKEN UP BY SOMEBODY LIKE YOU AND BECALLED "GREC PROPOSAL"* Having said that, I respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct . Now let us back to work Regards Kavouss * *
2016-02-03 7:03 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
Kavouss
Thank you for using a blank line between paragraphs in your latest email.
I didn't want to say anything before about this, because I didn't want to seem rude or pedantic; nonetheless it really does make your emails much easier to read.
I'd appreciate it if you continue!
Thanks again
On 02/02/16 23:20, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear CCWG members and participants
Dear GAC Members
At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board
1.
2/3 Majority
2.
Simple MAJORITY
Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60% instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF rec.1 which was accepted by consensus
Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3 Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.
That proposal was made by Beckie .
These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive
Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%
This combination is inconsistent with my proposal
Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .
Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,
*_I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal_*and stated that _apart from Beckie initial proposal_, *no other alternative proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG*
Regards
Kavouss .
2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>:
PAUL There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus People might have said many thing You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript and take it as a consensus proposal Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY Regards
2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>>:
Kavouss
You are wrong. I read the transcript.
Sorry Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>:
Dear Paul
I am very sorry to tell you that:
Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s proposal and mine only
Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09 Feb. 2016
This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal otherwise we will not end our work till 2017.
You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING
If agreed by consensus it will be discussed
Best Regards
2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:
That's ok. If process requires I will advance the Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.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 <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> */**neustar.biz <http://neustar.biz>* <http://www.neustar.biz>____
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...>
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://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/