Dear Rosemary and Holly, This is to certify the review of the questions in the e-mail below. We do know this is extremely short notice, but it would be great if the answers could inform our discussion on this very topic next Monday, February 8th, 12.00 UTC. We do appreciate that time is too short for a written memo, but maybe one of you or team could offer initial answers during the call. I hope to be correct in assuming that you have seen the compromise proposal under consideration with input primarily from Kavouss and Becky. Also, you may find Rafael's previous questions and the answers offered by Becky informative. Should these not be known, please send a note to staff so they can forward them to you. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
Von: "Perez Galindo, Rafael" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es> Datum: 6. Februar 2016 um 11:32:55 MEZ An: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Kopie: "thomas@rickert.net" <thomas@rickert.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Co-chairs,
Det me draw your attention to the latest developments in the discussions regarding Rec 11 (former ST 18), namely the carve-out system put forward by Becky and backed by the GNSO.
While thanking Becky for this proposal, I believe we can all agree to acknowledge that the carve-out is not a mere adjustment, nor a tweak to complete or shape a package of measures, but it constitutes a major essential change, for it actually regulates the functioning of the EC with regards to the GAC, and could raise important political and legal concerns.
Hence, and prior to any possible endorsement, I kindly ask that a detailed legal analisys of the proposed text be commissioned to the Legal assistance by the Co-Chairs:
- who would decide whether the carve-out is applicable to a certain issue to be subject to a community decision
- according to what standard would that decision be taken? For instance: is it enough if Board mentions GAC Advice in its rationale as a source for its decision. Or would a substantial test be applied, i.e. checked whether the Board decision follows GAC Advice? In the latter case, would the carve-out also apply if the GAC Advice is only partially followed?
- what means of redress would be available for any party not in agreement with such a decision?
- would the GAC, according to this wording, be able to participate fully in the decision-making of the community mechanism on the following topics?:
1. Any Board decision on policies or implementation of delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, which would be taken. having regard, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs)
2. Any Board decision on policy or implementation of new gTLDs, which would also take into consideration, among others, general standing advice on the matter. There is standing Advice from the GAC on such issues (e.g. GAC principles on new gTLDs)
Thank you and best regards
Rafael
________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of James Gannon [james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: 05 February 2016 21:15 To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; kdrazek@verisign.com Cc: thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Jorge, I think at this point the GAC needs to go back and consider the proposition that is on the table the the GNSO appears to be in a position to support.
We do not have the timelines available to us to continue to argue over this, the GNSO has come to rough support on a position now, I feel its time for the GAC to go back to its own processes with this proposition to evaluate it. We are all aware of the GACs wants in this, but that does not mean that the GNSO community will agree to them as we have laid out in our comments to the 3rd Draft proposal.
I feel that if we keep going around in circles over what the GNSO and GAC are potentially able to negotiate we will never end this process, and I think we all want to attempt to bring this to a close ASAP. I hope that the GAC can continue to show its flexibility and ability to compromise and work together with the broad community on this, no-one is setting out to disenfranchise any stakeholder group here, we are all trying to make this the least bad solution that we can all agree on. On this point no-one is winning and no-one is losing.
-James
On 05/02/2016, 8:03 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Keith
Thank you very much for this full text of the gnso input.
I'm aware if the concerns expressed by the gnso, and as I have said several times, I consider them legitimate and relevant, although we may have different opinions on their degree of impact or the means to address them.
At the same time we all know that the GAC came a long way to reach a consensus input on the then ST18, now rec11. And such difficulties were based on concerns from a relevant number of governments whose concerns I feel we should also consider legitimate and worth consideration.
Rec11 was then based on a compromise, which still raised concerns from sectors of the gnso and from a number of governments.
I think the solution is not to privilege parts of the community in reaching a solution.
We need to take on board as many stakeholders and constituencies as possible.
In the last weeks we agreed, we all agreed, to take up important points made by the gnso on rec11: clarify that the Board has no new obligations, the obligation of a clear rationale, the clarification that Board decisions always have to be consistent with Bylaws, irrespective of the source of the advice on which such a decision is based.
On rec10 we also made additions to address concerns expressed around the accountability review of the GAC.
And again on rec11 -as I also said- I felt that Becky's initial proposal (at least as some of us understood it) was one possible means. And I think that if we narrow it down to the community IRP it could work.
But to word it in such broad terms as it is now has the effect I have repeatedly described. Our lawyers could analyze the scooe of such an exception and advise us.
If we agree that the GAC is a legitimate participant in the community mechanism, as we habe repeatedly and consistently agreed, then we cannot favour an overbroad carve-out, because the GAC would not be able to participate on an equal footing in the community mechanism.
In such case we need to clarify and word the carve-out in such terms that it is clear that we just want a very narrow carve-out and that this will not prevent the GAC from normally participating in the community mechanism, with a few exceptions.
If the intention is to have a broad carve-out, then we would not be able to agree.
But I hope that we are in the first case.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Thanks Jorge,
A majority of the GNSO's constituent groups view the combination of Rec-1, Rec-10 and Rec-11 as "interlinked." The majority of GNSO groups (sufficient to reject) view ANY change of Board voting threshold for GAC consensus advice to be highly problematic. The GNSO's willingness to consider and accept Kavouss' suggested compromise of 60% is entirely dependent upon the further clarifications suggested by Becky in the Arasteh/Burr proposal.
I've attached the GNSO Council comments, which are a summary of the GNSO groups comments, for your further review. Here are the relevant texts:
From the GNSO Comments on Rec-1:
"Some in the GNSO have identified a clear link with Recommendations #10 & #11 and are of the view that the current balance between SO/ACs needs to be preserved in the Empowered Community, especially with respect to the GAC." [This means the status quo should be maintained -- the GAC should remain advisory and not have a decisional role.]
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-10:
"There are some concerns within the GNSO with the top down nature of accountability reviews, and the exemption of the GAC from this community requirement. It is also troubling that the GAC, further empowered if Recommendations #1 and #11 are adopted, would be exempted from the same periodic reviews as the other SO/ACs. All participants in the Community Mechanism should be subject to equivalent accountability reviews."
From the GNSO Comment on Rec-11:
"There is broad opposition to this recommendation as written. Most SG/Cs do not support the proposal to raise the threshold for a Board vote to reject GAC advice. All expressed serious concerns over the lack of specificity in the recommendation in relation to the requirements for GAC advice (such as the provision of rationale) and the possibility that this recommendation, if adopted, could unduly change the nature of the Board-GAC relationship and/or the position of the GAC vis-à-vis other SO/ACs. Several SG/Cs also believe that any CCWG recommendation on this topic should retain the current flexibility in the Bylaws where the Board is not required to undertake a formal vote in order to reject GAC advice."
"IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change. The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice. While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC's support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal."
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 2:16 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
I thought that the gnso council had supported recs 1&2. But I may have a bad memory and you may point to different gnso statements?
The "limited support and strong opposition" was on rec11, right?
Best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
Dear Jorge,
Actually, what we have on the table is the 3rd draft report AND the public comments submitted, including comments from the Chartering Organizations.
The public comments and discussions in the GNSO made clear that the 3rd draft report was not acceptable as written. The CCWG is now working to ensure that no Chartering Organization will oppose or reject the final report, or any of its 12 recommendations. Based on our recent discussions, this is what I believe the Arasteh/Burr proposal will deliver, and it does not appear to me that any Chartering Organization will formally oppose it.
If anyone believes their Chartering Organization will reach consensus to object to the current proposal, now is the time to say so. We are at the 11th hour and 57th minute.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 1:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: RPEREZGA@minetur.es; jbladel@godaddy.com; thomas@rickert.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Dear Keith
This is an interesting question.
But what we have on the table is the third draft report.
This proposal is being discussed in the ccwg -with a view to achieve a higher degree of consensus- but it does not seem the improve the consensus level - although there might be some vocal support from some gnso members (who have proposed this)
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>:
We should remember that the CCWG proposal will move forward if there is no formal objection from the Chartering Organizations. As such, the better question is, "Will any Chartering Organization reach consensus to object to the Arasteh/Burr proposal, or to the CCWG proposal as a whole?" Based on our discussions of the last several days, it appears to me that the Chartering Organizations may support or remain silent. Multiple GAC members have expressed a willingness to consider/accept the compromise as clarified by Becky's emails. If the GAC can't reach a consensus position either way, it will not formally oppose as a Chartering Organization. Will the GAC reach consensus to object?
Regards, Keith
From: Perez Galindo, Rafael [mailto:RPEREZGA@minetur.es] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Drazek, Keith Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
It is always difficult to make predictions, James, but taking into account that the 3rd draft proposal did not get support from many in the GAC, one could assume that this new package containing an extremely high sensitive adding, namely the "expanded carve out" system that in practice would exclude the GAC from participating in the EC in almost all cases, will not get much traction either.
Best Rafael
Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.
-------- Original message -------- From: "James M. Bladel" Date:05/02/2016 18:25 (GMT+01:00) To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-c ommunity@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Hello Jorge -
Do you believe this position is widely held in the GAC?
Thanks-
J.
On 2/5/16, 11:06 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bJorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
A rise in 10% on the voting threshold in exchange for a discriminatory and overbroad exclusion. Sounds like a weird deal and little of a serious compromise
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com%3cmailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>>:
The Arasteh/Burr proposal does not disenfranchise anyone. It gives the GAC more than it has today in requiring a higher Board threshold to reject consensus GAC advice. The current proposal creates appropriate checks and balances, and it's likely to be the only way forward to a successful and timely resolution of Rec-1 and Rec-11. Let's not undo the progress we've collectively made over the last several days.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com%3cmailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
You say this as if you already know the outcome of the vote ;-). While I am not a member of this working group and so have no voting right, I will say that adequate care should be taken here.
I don't think the intent should be to disenfranchise any part of the community; Yes there has been perceived higher power that GAC has and that is what is being fixed, and such fix should put them at same level with other part of the community as much as possible.
As a typical end user who lacks adequate resources (who to some extent would rely/hope on GAC's ability to defend my right in certain situation). I don't think I would support any process that does not give a fair play ground and anyone that reduces the decision making power of GAC below that of other participating SO/AC.
I don't think it is right for other parts of the community to veto GAC's "consensus" advice that has not achieved some combination of the following:
1. Rejected by board 2. Determined by board to be out of its mission and/OR determined by an IRP to be out of ICANN's mission. 3. Board's action/inaction on the advice is determined to be out of ICANN mission. (Which can be ultimately determined from the outcome of an IRP)
I don't think Becky's proposed edit will ensure such fair play ground and I apologise in advance if it indeed does (and I perhaps did not see it)
Regards
On 5 Feb 2016 5:27 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbr an chc <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchc%0b>>onsulting.com<http://onsulting.com>>> wrote: Agree completely. The compromise outlined on the call yesterday is the last, best final offer. If the GAC won't accept it, let's have a real vote of the members and move on.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbra nc hco<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com%3cmailto:paul.rose nz weig@redbranchco> nsulting.com<http://nsulting.com>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:B ec ky.Burr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:51 AM To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavall i@ gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto: Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>> <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.n et %3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross -c omm <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-comm%0b>>unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues
Sorry guys - I did not change my proposal - which has always been that the "GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice.² That is clearly stated in the note Jorge copied below. I see no principled basis for further restricting my proposed compromise to limit this to the IRP.
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://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 10:18 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com%3cmailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Brett there was no vote on the call yesteday best Olga
> El 5 feb 2016, a las 11:43 a.m., Schaefer, Brett > <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mai > lt > o:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org%3cmailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > escribió: > > Kavouss, > > Becky responded to this yesterday: > > Julia I inadvertently narrowed the proposal that was on the table > when I typed this up. My proposal from the beginning related to > Board action on GAC Advice. I will resend my original email > demonstrating this. > > I expect she will follow up soon. > > Speaking for myself, I do not support language the restricts the > GAC carve out to IRP. > > I am willing to support the compromise, including the 60 percent, > but it has to be as a package including the most recent version of > Becky's text which we discussed and "voted" on in the call yesterday. > > If we are opening the package back up, I doubt we would resolve > this by Tuesday or the next Tuesday or the one after that. We have > arrived at a tentative agreement, I suggest we not abandon it. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > Dear Beckie > As I mentioned in my earlier message, my GAC colleagues have > serious concerns about your revised text as currently contained in > the Package, Jorge has kindly picked up your initial proposal and > send it to us May I request you to kindly replace your current > text with your initial one as reproduced by Jorge and PUT A REVISED > TEXT for the package on the mailing list for our Monday discussion. > As far as I understand, at least those GAC members spoken could be > more comfortable to your initial text due to the fact the yr > revised text went much beyond your the objectives of your initial > text the concept if which if combined with 60% was acceptable to many people. > Awaiting your action , I remain > Regards > Kavousd > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 12:10, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, Julia and Becky > > This is the original proposal by Becky we were referring to > (highlights are mine, but text is unchanged): > > == > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 > An: Greg Shatan > <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:greg > sh > atanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregsha > t <mailto:gregshat%0b>>>>anipc@gmail.com<mailto:anipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>; Mueller, > Milton L > <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.ed > u% 3cmailto:milton@gatech.edu>><mailto:milton@gatech.edu<ma <mailto:milton@gatech.edu%3cma%0b>>>>ilto:milton@gatech.edu<http://gat ech.edu>>>> > Cc: > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, > GAC consensus, and finishing > > I have a proposal for discussion. > > Start from the premise that ICANN may implement GAC Advice only > consistent with the Bylaws, including the Mission. What if we > accept the 2/3rd rejection language but also provide that the GAC > cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of > community power designed to challenge the Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice. > In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the ³no more than > two SO/ACs objecting² threshold to a community IRP challenge to the > Board¹s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of > ICANN¹s Mission. > > I think this addresses the two bites at the apple problem we might > otherwise have, and provides a safety valve to counter balance the > 2/3rds rejection threshold. > > Just a thought - > > === > > 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 > > http://heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http > -3 > A__<http://heritage.org%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u > =h > ttp-3A__> > heritage http://>>.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq 8M o8T<http://%3e%3e.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm 6X _GRlaq8Mo8T> jDmrxdYa > hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolh > J2 > mGN > u > 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:41 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> ; > Becky Burr > <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky. > Bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:Becky.Burr <mailto:Becky.Burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:Becky .Burr@neustar.biz>>>; Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>; Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>; León Felipe > Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>>; > Schneider Thomas BAKOM > <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin. > ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider > @b > akom.admin.ch>> > <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bak > om > .ad <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Thomas.Schneider@bako m.ad%0b>>>>min.ch<http://min.ch>>>> > Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve > Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Beckie, > Pls note several concerns and questions raised by some GAC member > requesting to replace your text in the "package" with your initial > Text . This may help GAC colleagues to favourably review the"page > deal" if includes your original text. > Regards > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 11:26, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear Kavouss > > In fact, that (constraining the carve-out to the exercise of > community > IRP) would be a very sensible starting point and would avoid many > concerns which are being raised (at least) in my national consultations. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: Kavouss Arasteh > [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com< > ma > ilto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > ] > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 > An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > Cc: > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>> > <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto: > jukacz@erst.dk>><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:juka <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk%3cmailto:juka%0b>>>>cz@erst.dk<mailto:cz@erst.d k>>>>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear All, > Why Not taking initial Beckie,s > Proposal , as I mentioned in the call and do not get into other > questions resulted from het revised text. > Julia realised this and raised it before our devoted call Regards > Kavousd > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Feb 2016, at 10:58, > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.a dmin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom .admin.ch>>>> > <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto: <mailto:%0b>>>>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: > Dear all > > I agree that Julia raises a very significant point here, which > probably did not get enough attention due to the other discussions > we were having yesterday. > > A carve-out that excludes the GAC from the exercise of any > community decisions related to Board implementation seems overbroad > and mean a complete exclusion of the GAC from any community > decisions which are relevant to it. > > This change in Becky¹s initial proposal (where the carve-out was > directly linked to the community IRP) is very significant. > > Regards > > Jorge > > Von: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja > Wolman > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 > An: 'CCWG Accountability' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> > Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation > 1 and 11 issues > > Dear Co-Chairs, Kavouss, Becky, all > > Thank you for putting together the different pieces of text in > order to develop a compromise. It is our understanding that the > proposed text for modification of rec 1 was the one proposed by > Becky (email of 2 > February) and is the text, which has been the focus of our discussion: > > ³ > 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 Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > 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 > Board¹s 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 community¹s power to challenge Board decisions that would cause > ICANN to violate its Bylaws.² > > However, the latest text proposal in the email below uses the text > suggested by Brett (email of 2 February). Our understanding is > that the above initial text from Becky refers to a Board decision > based on GAC advice, which would violate ICANN¹s Bylaws and that it > refers to the community IRP to challenge such a Board decision > based on GAC advice. As such, Becky¹s initial text proposal (above) > should be the text to be considered at today¹s call. > > Best regards, > > > Finn and Julia > > > > Julia Katja Wolman > > DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY > > Dahlerups Pakhus > Langelinie Allé 17 > DK-2100 København Ø > Telephone: +45 3529 1000 > Direct: +45 35291308 > E-mail: > jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto > :j > ukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukac > z@erst.dk<mailto:z@erst.dk>>> > > http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v > 2/ > url<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk%3chttps:/urldefense.proofpoint. > co > m/v2/url> > ?u=http- > 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>&d > =C wIG aQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif > zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioS > UB > 1PW > w > WVyBult8&s=EjeWDl2T5TA3BJzYGL6fNcerDy-BOaHwVO2GfVt0NJE&e= > > > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > > > Fra: > accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountabil > it > y-c<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto: > accountability-c> > ross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr<mailto:a > cc > oun<mailto:ross-community-bounces@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabil > it > y-cr%3cmailto:accoun> > tability-cr> > oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann. > or > g<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:oss-community-bou > nc > es@icann.org>>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:acc > ou > nta > bility-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -community-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:accounta%0b%3e%3e%3ebility-cr > os s-community-bounces@icann.org%3e>] På vegne af Burr, Becky > Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 > Til: Kavouss Arasteh; > accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cros > s- > com<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accoun > ta > bility-cross-com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm<mailto:accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountability-cross-comm%3 > cm > ailto:accountability> > -cross-comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>>; > Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > Emne: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and > 11 issues > > Thank you Kavouss for this suggested approach. We have all been > working very hard and in good faith for over a year to develop a > consensus proposal. My understanding is that this is designed to > resolve all open issues in Recommendation 1 and 11. I am > supportive of this package deal, as described below (the > description below was also included in Kavouss¹ email). I > appreciate the collaborative spirit we have brought to the table > and hope we can use our Dedicated Rec. 11 call tomorrow to reach consensus! > > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s 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 Board¹s > 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. > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > * Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described above > as first final reading. > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > > > 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://neustar.biz><http://neustar.biz><http://www.neus > ta r.biz<http://neustar.biz%3e%3chttp:/www.neustar.biz>> > > From: Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto: > ka > vouss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>><mailto > :k > avo <mailto:kavo%0b>>>>uss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail. com<mailto:uss.arasteh@gmail.com%3cmailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>>
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM > To: Accountability Community > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cro > ss > -co <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-co%0b>>>>mmunity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com<m ailto:accountability<mailto:mmunity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:accountabili ty-cross-com%3cmailto:accountability> > -cross-com> > munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org><mailto:munity@icann.org>> >> , > Becky Burr > <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky. > bu > rr@neustar.biz%3cmailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>><mailto:becky.burr <mailto:becky.burr%0b>>>>@neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz><mailto:becky .burr@neustar.biz>>>, Mathieu Weill > <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu. > Weill@afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>><mailto:Mathieu.We <mailto:Mathieu.We%0b>>>>ill@afnic.fr<mailto:ill@afnic.fr><mailto:Math ieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>>, Thomas Rickert > <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert > .n et%3cmailto:thomas@rickert.net>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net%0b>>>><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>>, León Felipe Sánchez > Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfeli > pe @sanchez.mx%3cmailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><mailto:leonfelipe@s <mailto:leonfelipe@s%0b>>>>anchez.mx<http://anchez.mx><mailto:leonfeli pe@sanchez.mx>>> > Subject: <no subject> > > > Dear Esteemed and respectful CCWG Colleagues > > First of all, allow me to share the following thought with you: > We are in a crucial time for the CCWG requiring to act in a > coordinated manner on the upcoming Devoted Calls with the aim of > assisting the CCWG in finalizing Recommendation 11,including some > adjustments in Recommendation 1 which enable CCWG to assemble the > Supplementary Report. This Report needs to be issued well in > advance of the Marrakech meeting if the overall timeline for IANA > stewardship transition is to be maintained. Given that the CCWG is > working hard to agree a compromise in the current round of virtual > meetings, > > I wish to reiterate what I mentioned at various occasions that we > need to be pragmatic and tolerable, to be more open to any possible > set of solution with a view to find a compromise and not merely > insist on the wishes, requirements and expectations of every single > SO and AC but on the contrary make utmost efforts to satisfy ,to > the extent practiceable and possible the entire community. > > We are aware of the sensitive elements of Recommendation 1 as well > as those of Recommendation 11 > > We have made considerable progress to almost bring the views of the > interested parties together. > > However, there are some more bits to be done. In ICT network > connection, the Last kilometer or perhaps last hundred meters of > the connection are sometimes more complex to compared with the > entire network to provide an overall inclusive connection. > > We have succeeded to find workable solutions for many of these last > kilometers in various area .It remains to finish that last > kilometer which located in a rocky and mountainous area > > We need to also make out utmost effort to move forward from our > current position which is different from each other and not rule > out compromise as a backward step. Our role is to make concession > towards each other position .We need to take every possible > initiative to move forward to timely complete this proposal on enhanced accountability. > > Frankly speaking and from a professional view point, and as a > participant of CCWG and Liaison of ICG to CCWG, I think we should > really be more open, constructively, objectively and efficiently > > To this effect , I wish to suggest a package deal which needs to be > accepted or rejected as a whole without being disintegrated/ > decomposed . > > The Pack Deal is simple straightforward and practical > > 1. Modify Recommendation 1 to add the language as proposed by > Beckie 2. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 1 Unchanged 3. > Accept the 60% threshold for GAC advice ,if to be rejected by the > Board 4. Maintain the rest of Recommendation 11 Unchanged 5. No > other discussion ,what so ever, on these two Recommendation 6. > Submit the Package Deal to the forthcoming CCWG scheduled to be > held on 09 February with a note from Beckie indicating that this is > a delicate balance ,a sensitive compromise and recommend to the > CCWG to take it as it is > > I have no intention of being presumptuous about this, and you are > of course entirely free to reject my suggestions. Please note that > my proposal requires a change to Recommendation 1 and a conforming > change to Recommendation 2. To be consistent with our standard > procedures, I suggest we conduct 1rst final readings of the > compromise during our Dedicated Rec 11 calls (scheduled for 4 Feb > and > 8 Feb) and the 2nd final reading during our regular call on 9 Feb. > Please note that I have also included Malcolm¹s requested > clarification regarding no changes with respect to presumptions or > standard of review. I do not believe that this text is strictly > necessary, but in the interests of getting everyone on board I think it makes sense to include it. > > Package Deal > > 1. Modify Rec #1/Annex 1 and Rec #2/Annex 2 > > > > · Add the following to the end of Paragraph 23 in Rec #1/Annex 1: > > > > The GAC may not, however, participate as a decision maker in the > Empowered Community¹s consideration of the exercise a community > power for the purpose of challenging or blocking the Board¹s > 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 Board¹s 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 community¹s 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 Board¹s > 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. > > > > 2. Modify Recommendation 11 to reflect 60% threshold for rejection of > GAC advice by Board, with note to drafters that supermajority > requirement is not intended to create any presumption or modify the > standard applied by the Board in reviewing GAC Advice. > > > > 3. During dedicated Recommendation 11 meetings (4 February and 8 > February) > > > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 1 with change described above > as first final reading; > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 2 with change described above > as first final reading; and > > · Discuss and accept Recommendation 11 with changes described > above as first final reading. > > > > 4. Submit the package deal to the CCWG for final consideration (2nd > final reading) at its conference call scheduled for 9 February, > noting delicate balance requiring compromise on all sides to reach > consensus and recommending adoption ³as is² (assuming consensus on > Dedicated Recommendation 11 calls). > > Kavouss > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ > ma > ilm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lm%0b>>>>a > n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIE > Te > DAL > C > _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7- > 2H > ozb > e > OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X- > wC > 7M& > e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> > munity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm<mailto:Accountab > il > ity<mailto:munity@icann.org%3e%3cmailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm%3 > cm > ailto:Accountability> > -Cross-Comm> > unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org><mailto:unity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cros > s- > Com<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accoun > ta > bility-Cross-Com> munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_m > ai > lma > n > _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIET > eD > ALC > _ > lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2 > Ho > zbe > O > ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-w > C7 > M&e > = _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross -C omm<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Account ab ility-Cross-Comm> unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_ma il man _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeD AL C_l U Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hoz be OZX Y oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmu<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto:Accounta bi lity-Cross-Commu> nity@icann.org<mailto:nity@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross- Co mmunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-C ommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <GNSO Council Response to CCWG-Accountability - FINAL - 22 January 2016.pdf>
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