, Dear Paul, Thank you very much for your kind message. Yes I referred to REC.1 and 11 almost all the time but since you misunderstood me on that regard let me clarify the case. In just referred to in those several e.-mails to the concerns expressed by other people. If you kindly look at them the first one said, the message in Minority statements said ....That was either quotation or sharing my understanding from those messages with a view to possibly trigger discussions in order that people shed some light on the matter. That helped to better analyze the situation. After lengthy discussion, I said, one possible way would be to clarify the threshold for the removal of the entire Board which is Rec.2 which could possibly REMEDY some concerns on those two other Recommendations Off list ,exchange of views with some colleagues indicated that I was almost right that clarification on Rec.2 may ,just help. Rather than demonstrating emotions and intimidating that If I do this you will do that really DOES NOT HELP. Let us put hand in hand, thoughts on thoughts, and try find a more solid solution for some .if not all. Issues on the table I do not remember your face, but I know who you are I think you and few others like you are the key players in this game. Please use all your knowledge, your qualifications and your competency to suggest some sort of compromise. Observance of mutual respect and fair negotiations area the key elements in this very critical moment. In CCWG I wish you a nice afternoon and hope to hear from you tomorrow at 06,00 UTC Pls do not forget to be the first telling me good morning Kavouss (because of age seniority) Good time Kavouss 2016-02-22 22:07 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Ok that makes more sense thanks Becky.
-James
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 9:00 p.m. To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com>, 'Lisse Eberhard' < directors@omadhina.net>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I think actually Kavouss is referring to paragraph 72 in Recommendation 2, which is the thresholds paragraph
*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: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' < thomas@rickert.net>, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Kavous
I have no interest in intimidating you. I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts.
For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.” This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Eberhard Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Paul,
I do not know what are you talking about?
Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.
Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the,
Be kind and friend
Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work
We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion.
Best Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Dear Kavous
I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple.
Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it …
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; epilisse@gmail.com; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Paul
Pls kindly do not use that type of issue.
Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement .
This is the remedial point
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All,
Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards,
Thomas Rickert
---
rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...>
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
<image001.png> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>
*From:*epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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...>
_______________________________________________ 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...>
