Dear Leon, Thank you very much for the clarification. The issue has been further Evolved There is only a combined package proposal put forward to Beckie yesterday evening European Time Zone..See my mail of last night (European Time Zone) Thus we have only one Package to deal today and on monday. Kavouss 2016-02-04 9:40 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>:
Leon,
This is the original version, not the slightly modified one sent later by Becky and included in Kavouss' latest compromise.
Best,
Brett
__________
On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:49 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Jorge,
I am pasting the content of Thomas’ attachment for your convenience:
<Quote>
From: Becky Burr
In anticipation of our newly scheduled call on Thursday, I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Please accept my apologies in advance if I have in any way mischaracterized the contributions of Kavouss 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.
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 such Board decisions.
· Modify The Table on Page 22 of Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and adjust paragraph 62 to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs. Paragraph 62 would read as follows:
The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where use of a Community Power only attracts a decision to support or object to that power by four Decisional SOs or ACs or 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, in either case, 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.
<Unquote>
I hope you find this information useful.
Best regards,
León
El 04/02/2016, a las 12:04 a.m., <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> escribió:
Dear Thomas
Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working.
I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11.
Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso.
I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap.
Thanks and regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto: thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>:
All, you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime.
Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction.
However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas.
Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note.
The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow.
Kind regards, Thomas
<Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.>
Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Hello co-chairs
Could you please respond to the email below?
Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side.
Please answer this in full and do not point to general information:
We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.
thanks and regards
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?
Dear co-chairs and staff
Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday?
We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.
Thanks and regards
Jorge
________________________________ Brett Schaefer 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<http://heritage.org/>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<; 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