Hi, I am supportive of the direction we are taking. I think that it should be up to ACSO and that we should not limit their possibilities a priori. As a response to all of those who think that their ACSO is more important that any of the others I think it displays a lack of understanding of the multistakeholder mix we have that keeps the powers within organization balanced. So, thanks Jordan for clarifying what was decided, i must admit I too was not sure at the end of the call. avri On 28-Jul-15 05:05, Jordan Carter wrote:
Dear Kavouss
I confess I am very surprised to receive this email.
My summary in the call was, I hoped, perfectly clear.
The revised draft that will be presented later today will:
- have five votes available for *each* of the SOs and ACs - all seven of them - specify a simple notice period that an SO or AC has to agree to, in order to declare their participation - no bylaws changes will be required.
I cannot be any more clear than this.
Your concern has been heard, and it has been shared by others in WP1.
The consensus of WP1 agrees with you.
The documents will reflect that.
Please advise if anything remains unclear. I will do my best to help clarify further.
Many thanks Jordan
On 28 July 2015 at 14:01, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, In the virtual meeting today at 0400 Korean Time, I express my strong objection to exclude any AC or OS from exercising its fundamental right at this stage. GAC has not yet formally decided nor announced that it will not wish to participate in community empowerment to exercise its rights to vote They just indicated that they wish to retain the rights that currently granted to it in providing advice to ICANN Board in application of its operating Principle NO 47. They are studying the matter and could come back to CCWG at later stage .As it was discussed ,in any democratic society no individual or group of individual are excluded to vote .their very rights to vote are included in the Constitution of the society However, one they receive the ballot vote they may decide to vote or not according to the circumstances. In view of the above, CCWG has no right to decide about the GAC before GAC formally inform the CCWG and the Community that it prefers to be permanently excluded from any right to vote in future . What is the risk if CCWG exclude GAC from participation at any voting on a global basis? Suppose that such inappropriate decision is made without explicit agreement of GAC, if in future any SO or AC or ICANN make a decision or modify Bylaws which has direct impact on the Governments very interest and GAC is unable to express its views in voting the only possibility exist would be GAC make recourse to modify Bylaws to be able to VOTE. However, if such modification does not carried forward , the GAC remained in the middle of NOWHERE . Pls seriously reconsider the matter and provide the rights for ALL AC and SO to be able to exercise its very right and leave it to those SO and AC to exercise or not that right . Pls do not make attempts to just please certain entities or individual who has been taking a very hostile attitude in regard with GAC. I am waiting your immediate remedial actions Kavouss
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus