Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 8 Feb 2016, at 03:04 , Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@GMAIL.COM> wrote:Dear Holly,Dear RosemaryYour situation is fully understandable,I also agreed wit James that1. we should not rush2.The full team is not abvailable at the ween-end3. We will receive ,gowever, verbal clarification followed by Written Memo, once available.Without that written MEMO, IT MAY BE DIFFCULT TO BE CONVINCED .4. Unlike few other distinguished colleagues, I am of strong view that a thorough analysis is required enabling each party to examine the formal / legal analysis and react accrodingly without emotion and withourt accusing any other party to either not understand or he orshe is wrong. That nobody is wrong as everyone interprets the case as per its understanding and obligations as well as its affiliation.We should think, and judge neutrally and impartially.Too much excitations and emotions were demonstrated from either party which does not help at all.I fully appreciate your kind efforts as I did yesterdayRegardsKavouss_______________________________________________2016-02-07 16:53 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>:Greatly appreciated, James and Kavouss. Both Rosemary and I are traveling this weekend. We will do our best for tomorrow's call but will need more time for a written response.
Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
From: Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:37:21 AM
To: James Gannon
Cc: Gregory, Holly; ICANN@adlercolvin.com; Thomas Rickert; Accountability Cross Community; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear James,Certainly I agree with you that we should not rush.However, you very rightly said"Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available.Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available".That is a valid approach which was missing in Holly's mail and you did kindly pick it up for which I am grateful to you.Yr statement is very valid and logiqueKavouss
2016-02-07 15:33 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Legal analysis cannot be rushed or it is of no value to any of us.Please allow our lawyers do prepare what they are able to do for the call and Im sure that formal written opinion will come when it is available.Also recognise that this is the weekend and full teams may not be available.
-james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday 7 February 2016 at 2:19 p.m.
To: "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory@sidley.com>
Cc: "ICANN@adlercolvin.com" <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
Dear Holly,Thank you very much.But the issue is too delicate, complex and sensitive.We do not accept only verbal explanationas said by youQuote" we will try to be prepared to address on the call."UnquoteWe need a memo describing t various aspects of the matter.Pls kindly parepare a MEMOi HEREBY REQUEST THE cO-Chair to urge our legal Council to prepare a formal MEMO.Failure to do so, considerable delay may be caused.to the entire process.GAC MEMBERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY FOR ANY VERBAL EXPLANATION AND PERHAPS gnso tooRegardsKavouss
2016-02-07 14:46 GMT+01:00 Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>:
Hi Thomas, we will try to be prepared to address on the call. Holly
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
From: Thomas Rickert
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 03:03:45 PM
To: Rosemary E. Fei; Gregory, Holly; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN@adlercolvin.com
Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; ACCT-Staff; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issu
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
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
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
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