Likewise. Matthew On 05/02/2016 08:18, Drazek, Keith wrote:
This is clear to me.
Regards, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 11:13 AM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; thomas@rickert.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Aresteh proposal to resolve Recommendation 1 and 11 issues Importance: High
NO! The GAC’s role would be limited only where the exercise of community power is challenging the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice! That leaves PLENTY of room for GAC participation - as a decision maker - in matters that have public policy implications.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:09 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Becky
it seems that then we could not agree, as your proposal would exclude the GAC from the community mechanism in any issue which may be relevant to the GAC.
This is clearly contrary to the equal footing participation of all SO/AC we have agreed a long time ago.
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
That does not limit the preceding more general statement of principle that says the GAC cannot act in a decision-making role with respect to an exercise of community power designed to challenge the Board’s implement.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/5/16, 11:03 AM, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
What about your following sentence:?
In other words, the GAC would not be counted in the “no more than two SO/ACs objecting” threshold to a community IRP challenge to the Board’s implementation of GAC Advice alleged to exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission.
seems clear that it refers the carve-out to the community IRP
best
Jorge
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 05.02.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:
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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / 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>> 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>> 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:kavo us s.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: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.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:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Burr, Becky Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 21:05 An: Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat an ipc@gmail.com>>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm 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
heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritag e.
org&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah OP
8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=FDOmkRL9aMpNQp U6 GLyFoxSd_SrpW5QS_fiz3xNHU-E&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage .org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdY a
hOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=08yolhJ2mGN u 8PN0GVUckj832KfhW8hnHwzonGIi4pw&e= > Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto: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: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>; Becky Burr
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz><mailto:Becky.Burr @n eustar.biz>>; Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net ; Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.mx>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
<Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> <m ailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.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: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.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] Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Februar 2016 11:25 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>> <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>;
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com 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: Jo rge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto: Jo rge.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:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julia Katja Wolman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 10:34 An: 'CCWG Accountability'
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com 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>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http -3
A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOif zm
6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwxdCMQmeKyfvfgKztN _5 hTNBQ&s=vg2MZzQiAfSCjAitWGLmeRUMzh0veJqwc1AviznVzWs&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- 3A__www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi f
zm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZXYoAVUioSUB1PW 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:accountability-c ro ss-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cr
oss-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:oss-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Burr, Becky Sendt: 4. februar 2016 00:19 Til: Kavouss Arasteh;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-comm 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://www.neustar.biz>
From: Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com><mailto:kavo us s.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM To: Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-co mm unity@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org<mailto:munity@icann.org>>>, Becky Burr
<becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz><mailto:becky.burr @n eustar.biz>>, Mathieu Weill
<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr><mailto:Mathieu.We il l@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe@s an chez.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-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm a
n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C
_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozb e
OZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M& e = > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org<mailto:unity@icann.org>>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2Hozbe O
ZXYoAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e =
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=dpr1wb6efk7-2HozbeOZ XY oAVUioSUB1PWwWVyBult8&s=gnMQACbj2P2Z3vpkeKbIgyRri1DCeZcVIu6D5X-wC7M&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Com mu nity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=rc7WXJ6fJycCYK5GlXwx dC MQmeKyfvfgKztN_5hTNBQ&s=VTk9IqV37-xLyMJG8fHErifAzzYMBIZoGD-_IRZR5oA&e=
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
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus