On 19 Feb 2016 7:21 p.m., "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Unless the GAC can present us with a consensus objection or some form of
wholesome proposal reflecting the full breath of membership of the GAC I think we need to move forward noting the objections of the 11 GAC members.
SO: While I am not GAC, I think the statement above is uncalled for. Let's just not start doing the maths, otherwise I can assure you that 1 govt could claim to have gazillion individuals behind it. One could also prove that if GNSO or any other decision making SO/AC in the empowered community for instance apply the same definition of consensus that GAC has they will be in the same position GAC finds itself right now. I don't think it's at all fair to leverage on the fact that GAC may not be able to achieve consensus to create an imbalance in the multistakeholder model.
The board is free to vote against our proposal. Do not let this 11th hour rush to push the CCWG into a corner move us from our long and hopefully fruitful journey.
SO: I am also not interested in delaying the proposal any further as well but considering the "carve out" came at the 10th hour, we need to be careful about taking it through to the 12th without considering its full implication. Regards
-James
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:15 p.m. To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'Greg Shatan' < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
+1
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@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
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
Greg:
Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.
Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.
Best. Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue
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
________________________________
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community