1. REPLY TO MIKE

Dear Mr. Chartier

( you called me Mr. Arasteh then I have to do and apply the same rule calling you Mr. Chartier9

Thanky you for your message

You said at the begining of your message the following

Quote

"Dear Mr. Arasteh,

I understand where you are coming from."

Unquote

Unfortunately this is not a friendly question and perhaps offensive ,if not insultation

I never ever asked and even know where are you come from.This is not my business not business of CCWG .

I FULLY RESPECT EVERY AND ALL NATIONS AND SIMILARLY EVERY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME FROM, AND WHAT AFFILIATION THEY HAVE .

The purpose of the CCWG is not raising the question of or statement relating to nationaly , race, colour, religeion, conviction ,political adherance and so on.

We are just a group of freinds ,colleagues ,getting together and collaborating with each other to contribute to the ICANN accountability.

Therefore, I consider, your question was not only hostile, offensive but totally irrelevant and I therefore respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement

I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct .

As for the substance of your views on the alternatives 7 options , I fully respect your views as I respects views of others.

I think every one of us must

2. Reply to Grec

Thank you for your message

You said the following:

Quote:

"Furthermore, I would note that the proposal, although originally made by Kavouss in a long and multi-branched email string, received no attention until I placed it in an entirely new email and brought it to the specific attention of the CCWG. It was my email that initiated discussion of the 60% proposal. Therefore, I think it should more appropriately be called my proposal in any event. I graciously allowed it to be called "Kavouss's proposal"; however, based on the facts, that is clearly a misnomer, since the work of the group is based on my email. I would therefore request that the 60% proposal henceforth be called "Greg's Proposal."

Unquote

Dear Grec

What you have stated does not reflect the reality.Befroe I started my e-mails ,painted by you as multi-branched email string, I raised the issue in a CCWG CALL..havind said that , in my view , it does not matter who proposed the option, I am just interested in the proposal and not the author of the proposal.

Thank you for your generosity to allow that the proposal be called my proposal ,But I have withdrawn my proposal therefroe your gracious action and generosity is no longer relevant as I HAVE NO PROPOSAL.

FR ME DOESN^T MATTER IF TAKEN UP BY SOMEBODY LIKE YOU AND BECALLED "GREC PROPOSAL"

Having said that, I respectfully request you to kindly refrain to make such an unfriendly and non ethical statement

I think every one of us must respect each other and evenif disagree with one other observe mutual respect and spirit of ICANN code of conduct .

Now let us back to work

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-03 7:03 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:

Kavouss

Thank you for using a blank line between paragraphs in your latest email.

I didn't want to say anything before about this, because I didn't want to seem rude or pedantic; nonetheless it really does make your emails much easier to read.

I'd appreciate it if you continue!

Thanks again

On 02/02/16 23:20, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear CCWG members and participants

Dear GAC Members

At CCWG call 81 ,in discussing REC.11 Annex 11 there was two
alternatives for rejection of GAC Advice by the Board

1.

2/3 Majority

2.

Simple MAJORITY

Since there was a lengthy discussion, I proposed a compromise of 60%
instead of THRESHOLD IN 1) and 2) above WITHOUT TOUCHING ANY ELEMENT OF
rec.1 which was accepted by consensus

Someone talked about a creative action and proposed to retain 2/3
Majority in Rec.11 .Annex 11 but modify REC 1 by adding a phrase at
paragraph 23 of that Rec , if I am not mistaken.

That proposal was made by Beckie .

These two proposal were on the table without being mutually inclusive

Today I observed that people not only wants to Modify Rec 1 ; disabling
GAC to exercise its community power not to be counted as one of the TWO
SO/AC IN CASE other part of comity invoke IRP in regard with ICANN
action relating to GAC Advice alleged to exceed ICANN Mission while
maintaining 2/3 majority in Rec 11 BUT ALSO LOWERING THAT THRESHOLD TO 60%

This combination is inconsistent with my proposal

Moreover such course of action has not formally been approved, even if
unilaterally suggested by some people at the meeting and thus such
amended proposal was not formally given to Beckie Group to discuss .

Since the proponent of amended BECKIE PROPOSAL insisting on his views,

*_I have formally withdrawn my initial 60% threshold proposal_*and
stated that _apart from Beckie initial proposal_, *no other alternative
proposal could discussed at Beckie’s group without the approval of CCWG*

Regards

Kavouss .

2016-02-02 23:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

PAUL
There is no evidence that such decision was made by consensus
People might have said many thing
You can not just referring to unilateral statement in transcsript
and take it as a consensus proposal
Pls transcript is transcrip those people who have spoken must
understand that there is no valuse on unilateral decision .We are
member of a group any decision for study must be AGREED BY EVERY BODY
Regards

2016-02-02 23:54 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:

Kavouss

You are wrong. I read the transcript.

Sorry
Paul

--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:53PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Paul

I am very sorry to tell you that:

Our mandate is limited to discuss the initial Becky’s
proposal and mine only

Since I withdrew mine, if you want to make a new proposal
that must be submitted to the next meeting of CCWG on 09
Feb. 2016

This group is not a test LAB for multiple number on proposal
otherwise we will not end our work till 2017.

You can offer your proposal to the next CCWG MEETING

If agreed by consensus it will be discussed

Best Regards

2016-02-02 23:46 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apaul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:

That's ok. If process requires I will advance the
Aratesh/Burr proposal under my own name. 😊

--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android

Tuesday, 02 February 2016, 05:42PM -05:00 from Kavouss
Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Becky
Pls take out my proposal from the Table
I formally withdraw MY PROPOSAL
Tks Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky
Your proposal did not have such statement
Your proposal was clearly mentioned retaining
2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an overall
acceptance.
This will cause considerable poblem and create
serious of open-ended argument
My question to you was to clarify that your
question did not refer toeither 60% or simple
majority . Let us go back to the discussions on
call 81 There was two alternative mentioned by
Steve ,
- 2/3
SIMPLE MAJORITY
I proposed a middfle ground 60%
You then proposed that
1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to
participate in ommunity empowering exercise when
IRP is invoked by community for Board's actions
exceeding its Mission and
2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
IT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on your
initial proposal and mine
Now you implictly changing your proposal
Disagree TO THAT course of action
I case you insist I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW MY
PROPOSAL AND THEN WE GO BACK TO ccwg and
rediscuss REC 11
Please kindly clarify your position
Once again if there would be any link between
your proposal and 60% Please remove my proposal
from the Table and go ahead with your own
proposal only
I also disagree with any new proposal .We can
not discuss for days and day for receiving
creative proposal
Let us be realistic rather than creative.
Best Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:24 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
<kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Becky
Your proposal did not have such statement
Your proposal was clearly mentioned
retaining 2/3 and modifying Rec1 to have an
overall acceptance.
This will cause considerable poblem and
create serious of open-ended argument
My question to you was to clarify that your
question did not refer toeither 60% or
simple majority . Let us go back to the
discussions on call 81 There was two
alternative mentioned by Steve ,
- 2/3
SIMPLE MAJORITY
I proposed a middfle ground 60%
You then proposed that
1.MOD. Rec 1 in disabling GAC not to
participate in ommunity empowering exercise
when IRP is invoked by community for Board's
actions exceeding its Mission and
2. Retain 2/3 as contained in Rec 11 Annex 11
YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR PROPOSAL
iT IS NOT ADMITTED. We agreed to work on
your initial proposal and mine
Now you implictly changing your proposal
Disagreed
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-02 23:10 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aBecky.Burr@neustar.biz>>:

UPDATED:

I have attempted to set out the
proposals discussed last night. ____

___ ___

_Aresteh Proposal_:____

Modify Rec. #11/ Annex 11 to provide
that GAC Advice supported by consensus,
defined as general agreement in the
absence of a formal objection, may be
rejected only by a vote of at least
*60%* of the Board. All other
requirements (e.g., rationale to be
provided, etc.) unchanged. This proposal
is strictly limited to Recommendation 11
Annex 11 without any change to
Recommendation 1 as it stands on 02
February 2016.____

_Hutty Gloss on 60% Threshold_: Add
language to ensure that supermajority
requirement creates no new expectation
of approval or otherwise modify the
Board’s standard of review of GAC
Advice. ____

_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
Community’s consideration of the
exercise a community power for the
purpose of challenging or blocking the
Board’s 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 Board’s 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 community’s 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 Board’s
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. ____/

Kavouss has asked whether my proposal is
paired to a 66% threshold, 60% threshold
or simple majority for rejecting GAC
Advice. It is not inconsistent with any
of those outcomes.

*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>____

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community