I need some clarity from the Board.

I can read Steve's message in two ways.

1. They are sticking to their previous statement which I understood to mean accepting the "carve-out", but not the reduction in the threshhold to remove the Board. That stays at 4 (and requires unanimity) unless there is a successful IRP).

2. They are now withdrawing their previous position and rejecting the carve-out excluding the GAC from participating in Community Powers exercised in response to Board action/inaction over GAC advice.

Steve?

Alan

At 19/02/2016 12:37 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
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> 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>:
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@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