Dear Kavouss I fully understand your point. The more reason that the co-chairs should clarify what will be discussed exactly on the Thursday and Monday calls. Regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016 10:07 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed? Dear Jorge, Thank you for your message. You may have noted that, as participant to CCWGat call 81.I made a compromise proposal,strictly limited to two option in Annex 11 of Rec 11,NAMELY 2/3 AND SIMPLE MAJORITY, witzh a view to get out of dreadlocks. Later on I have noted that after Beckie made her proposal in regard with Rec.1 ( disabling GAC in regard with exercising its community power, in case that other community innvoked IRP regading Board's action with respect to GAC advice, claiming 8 alleging that the Board's actions exceeded it mission, Surprisingly I have noted that those 5 persons very offen speaking of the need to exclude GAC TO EXERCISE ANY POWER AND ARE PARTISANS OF st 18 AND 50% SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR GAC ADVICE, ATTEMPTING TO COMBINE bECJKIE'S SO-XALLED "INNOVATIVE PROPOSAL "WITH 60% . Last night I formally withdrew that proposal which I made as CCWG PARTICIPANT. Consequently, no proposal should be associated to me in that regard Best wishes Kavouss 2016-02-03 7:01 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Hello co-chairs Could you please respond to the email below? Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side. Please answer this in full and do not point to general information: We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat. thanks and regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed? Dear co-chairs and staff Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday? We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat. Thanks and regards Jorge _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Jorge and Kavouss As you may recall, there was this very helpful response from Thomas when I raised this question in the chat during CCWG meeting 82: *Mark Carvell GAC - UK Govt: (01:40) REC 11 Sorry to go back to previous agenda item 2 on Rec 11. Can you confirm that the upcoming focus issue call(s) will consider only the two proposals by Becky and Kavouss and that no WHOLLY new propoal will be considered. I think it is imporrtant to make this clear if we are to achieve closure by next week - which everyone wants I'm sure!* * Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (01:41) Mark, we do not have indications for other proposals than those from Kavouss and Becky.* * jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (01:41) +1 Mark*. Kind regards Mark Mark Carvell ​United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN​ Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 3 February 2016 at 09:16, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jorge Yes I agree with you. If these two devoted calls are opened to new or old multiple proposals we will get no results The Co-Chairs need to clarify the matter Regards Kavouss

2016-02-03 10:10 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

...

Dear Kavouss

I fully understand your point.

The more reason that the co-chairs should clarify what will be discussed exactly on the Thursday and Monday calls.

Regards

Jorge

*Von:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016 10:07 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Mathieu Weill < mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

Dear Jorge,

Thank you for your message.

You may have noted that,* as participant to CCWGat call 81.*I made a compromise proposal,strictly limited to two option in Annex 11 of Rec 11,NAMELY 2/3 AND SIMPLE MAJORITY, witzh a view to get out of dreadlocks.

Later on I have noted that after Beckie made her proposal in regard with Rec.1 ( disabling GAC in regard with exercising its community power, in case that other community innvoked IRP regading Board's action with respect to GAC advice, claiming 8 alleging that the Board's actions exceeded it mission,

Surprisingly I have noted that those 5 persons very offen speaking of the need to exclude GAC TO EXERCISE ANY POWER AND ARE PARTISANS OF st 18 AND 50% SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR GAC ADVICE, ATTEMPTING TO COMBINE bECJKIE'S SO-XALLED "INNOVATIVE PROPOSAL "WITH 60% .

Last night I formally withdrew that proposal which I made as *CCWG PARTICIPANT.*

*Consequently, no proposal should be associated to me in that regard*

*Best wishes*

*Kavouss *

2016-02-03 7:01 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Hello co-chairs

Could you please respond to the email below?

Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side.

Please answer this in full and do not point to general information:

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:

Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

Dear co-chairs and staff

Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday?

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

Thanks and regards

Jorge

_______________________________________________ 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

all, I thought that the process and items were perfectly clear. I am not a co-chair and haven't discussed this with them, so I might be wrong, but read on if you like... The two calls on Thursday and Monday should be seen as "working sessions" - they are being held to see if some consensus can be arrived at among the group about how to break the deadlock we find ourselves in. Becky has ably set out the current proposal. My view and understanding is that nothing is off the table in those discussions that is part of a constructive effort to arrive at a solution to Rec 11 (and if necessary consequential amendments to others) that we can, as a group, form consensus around. As such, nobody "owns" any proposals, and new ideas to break the deadlock are not only welcomed - they are positively encouraged. Because both calls are Working meetings, the only topic is the above, and there isn't going to be any formal decision-making. That does not mean the co-chairs might not employ a range of approaches to see where the group is at, which might include polling, but I am sure it does mean that NO DECISIONS per se will be finalised on either call. Just my tuppence. Jordan On 3 February 2016 at 22:30, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

I agree and not only because I have a hard stop at 13:00 on Thursday but not on Monday.

So, if we did any polling, we'd need to do it before 13:00 tomorrow or on Monday.

I do however again appoint Stephen Deerhake as Proxy should I be unable to make the poll, if any and would request Accountability Staff to note this for the record.

greetings, el

On 2016-02-03 11:10, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

...

Dear Kavouss

I fully understand your point.

The more reason that the co-chairs should clarify what will be discussed exactly on the Thursday and Monday calls.

Regards

Jorge

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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

I also agree with Jorgethat we need to get a clear and firm mandate .We are not open to multiple totally new proposal. Let us wait for the co-chairs The more options ,the more discussion and more difficult to arrive at compromise. I have heard the so-called " Every option is on the table " but..... Regards Kavouss 2016-02-03 10:46 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Dear Jordan

I appreciate your message.

However, what is sought is a formal answer and guidance by the co-chairs on all points already raised during yesterday’s call.

Best regards

Jorge

*Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Jordan Carter *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016 10:37 *An:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

all,

I thought that the process and items were perfectly clear. I am not a co-chair and haven't discussed this with them, so I might be wrong, but read on if you like...

The two calls on Thursday and Monday should be seen as "working sessions" - they are being held to see if some consensus can be arrived at among the group about how to break the deadlock we find ourselves in.

Becky has ably set out the current proposal.

My view and understanding is that nothing is off the table in those discussions that is part of a constructive effort to arrive at a solution to Rec 11 (and if necessary consequential amendments to others) that we can, as a group, form consensus around.

As such, nobody "owns" any proposals, and new ideas to break the deadlock are not only welcomed - they are positively encouraged.

Because both calls are Working meetings, the only topic is the above, and there isn't going to be any formal decision-making. That does not mean the co-chairs might not employ a range of approaches to see where the group is at, which might include polling, but I am sure it does mean that NO DECISIONS per se will be finalised on either call.

Just my tuppence.

Jordan

On 3 February 2016 at 22:30, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

I agree and not only because I have a hard stop at 13:00 on Thursday but not on Monday.

So, if we did any polling, we'd need to do it before 13:00 tomorrow or on Monday.

I do however again appoint Stephen Deerhake as Proxy should I be unable to make the poll, if any and would request Accountability Staff to note this for the record.

greetings, el

On 2016-02-03 11:10, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

...

Dear Kavouss

I fully understand your point.

The more reason that the co-chairs should clarify what will be discussed exactly on the Thursday and Monday calls.

Regards

Jorge

[...]

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

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

Web: www.internetnz.nz

*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

Dear Thomas Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working. I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11. Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso. I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap. Thanks and regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>: All, you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime. Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction. However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas. Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note. The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow. Kind regards, Thomas <Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.> Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>: Hello co-chairs Could you please respond to the email below? Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side. Please answer this in full and do not point to general information: We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat. thanks and regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed? Dear co-chairs and staff Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday? We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat. Thanks and regards Jorge _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear James I understand your point. However, rec11 has been reopened at the gnso's behest in the ccwg. I guess that GAC colleagues would need to know what exactly is needed/suggested by the part of the community (gnso) who is trying to change a prior compromise which directly affects our part (gac). Without that a meaningful debate is quite difficult, especially when you are talking about govts and a large group of them working on a full consensus rule. best Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 04.02.2016 um 07:20 schrieb James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:

I obviously do not speak for the GNSO but I think that the Becky/Kavouss discussions are gaining much traction and may be acceptable to the GNSO. But like yourself we are in the situation of having to consult with our own very diverse stakeholders and constituents, so if it feels like the GNSO has not agreed a position that you can take to yours its because of exactly the same reason, we cannot come out in support of a single proposal until have confirmed that it is understood and accepted by our own memberships. And given that some constituencies are very large (Not just my own) that can take a few days to confirm.

-James

...

On 04/02/2016, 6:04 a.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 Thomas

Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working.

I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11.

Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso.

I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap.

Thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>:

All, you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime.

Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction.

However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas.

Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note.

The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow.

Kind regards, Thomas

<Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.>

Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Hello co-chairs

Could you please respond to the email below?

Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side.

Please answer this in full and do not point to general information:

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:

Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

Dear co-chairs and staff

Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday?

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

Thanks and regards

Jorge

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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

Understood fully, but I just ask that the GAC understand that the GNSO is currently working very hard to agree on that exact item so that we can come to a compromise that works for all stakeholders involved. As the GAC of all groups understands this is a complex and time consuming effort to ensure that those of us on the CCWG are reflecting the wishes of the GNSO as a whole and that our constituent members views are reflected in any final consensus. This is not something that we are dragging our feet on intentionally we are working to ensure that our position on the Becky/Kavouss proposal is solid and final for other stakeholders to work with. -jg Sent from my iPad

On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:27, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear James

I understand your point.

However, rec11 has been reopened at the gnso's behest in the ccwg.

I guess that GAC colleagues would need to know what exactly is needed/suggested by the part of the community (gnso) who is trying to change a prior compromise which directly affects our part (gac).

Without that a meaningful debate is quite difficult, especially when you are talking about govts and a large group of them working on a full consensus rule.

best Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

...

Am 04.02.2016 um 07:20 schrieb James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:

I obviously do not speak for the GNSO but I think that the Becky/Kavouss discussions are gaining much traction and may be acceptable to the GNSO. But like yourself we are in the situation of having to consult with our own very diverse stakeholders and constituents, so if it feels like the GNSO has not agreed a position that you can take to yours its because of exactly the same reason, we cannot come out in support of a single proposal until have confirmed that it is understood and accepted by our own memberships. And given that some constituencies are very large (Not just my own) that can take a few days to confirm.

-James

...

On 04/02/2016, 6:04 a.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 Thomas

Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working.

I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11.

Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso.

I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap.

Thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>:

All, you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime.

Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction.

However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas.

Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note.

The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow.

Kind regards, Thomas

<Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.>

Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:

Hello co-chairs

Could you please respond to the email below?

Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side.

Please answer this in full and do not point to general information:

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

thanks and regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:

Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

Dear co-chairs and staff

Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday?

We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.

Thanks and regards

Jorge

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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

Leon, This is the original version, not the slightly modified one sent later by Becky and included in Kavouss' latest compromise. Best, Brett __________ On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:49 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Jorge, I am pasting the content of Thomas’ attachment for your convenience: <Quote> From: Becky Burr In anticipation of our newly scheduled call on Thursday, I have attempted to set out the proposals discussed last night. Please accept my apologies in advance if I have in any way mischaracterized the contributions of Kavouss or Malcolm. 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. 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 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 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 on Page 22 of Rec. #2/Annex 2 to reflect this carve out and adjust paragraph 62 to cover situations that would otherwise require the support of four SOs or ACs. Paragraph 62 would read as follows: The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that in a situation where use of a Community Power only attracts a decision to support or object to that power by four Decisional SOs or ACs or 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, in either case, 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. <Unquote> I hope you find this information useful. Best regards, León El 04/02/2016, a las 12:04 a.m., <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> escribió: Dear Thomas Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working. I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11. Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso. I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap. Thanks and regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net><mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>: All, you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime. Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction. However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas. Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note. The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow. Kind regards, Thomas <Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.> Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>: Hello co-chairs Could you please respond to the email below? Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side. Please answer this in full and do not point to general information: We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat. thanks and regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: Von: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ An: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed? Dear co-chairs and staff Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday? We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat. Thanks and 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<http://heritage.org/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community