Dear All,

From the very begining I was in favour of 4 SO/AC for removal of the Board in any case. Regards Kavouss

2016-02-19 20:00 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:

And that’s a fair concern, the question is how do we alleviate that concern while maintain the core principles of the carve out as designed and agreed?

-jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Friday 19 February 2016 at 6:55 p.m. To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.

*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>

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

+1

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>

*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Greg:

Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.

Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.

Best. Philip

*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*

*Virtualaw LLC*

*1155 F Street, NW*

*Suite 1050*

*Washington, DC 20004*

*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*

*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*

*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.

The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.

When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.

Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?

I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Co-chairs

You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.

This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,

If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,

We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.

Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such

If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .

Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .

THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL

Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls

Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.

You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon

Regards

Kavouss

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

------------------------------

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

Ok. If Steve Crocker could also confirm that his understanding is the same, that would be very helpful. On the overall point - the board has already made its view on that question clear. Steve's email doesn't reference the GPI test that is the only basis the Board has set out to object to ccwg proposals, and which it has invoked prior. The intervention thus has two effects. It is a source of uncertainty, because it isn't clear. And it is a source of delay, because the intent and the group's response to it has to be clarified. Once again, we face a further delay thanks to the way the ICANN board has chosen to behave. I guess I wish I could say I was surprised, or disappointed - but that's long gone. I'm just confused: what is the end game here? If anyone knows, please feel free to share. Jordan On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Becky -

There was another thread on this from Alan, but wanted to confirm in this thread too that this is the correct understanding of the Board’s concern.

Thanks, Sam

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>> on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Becky.Burr@neustar.biz');>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:55 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com');>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>>, 'Greg Shatan' < gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thomas@rickert.net');>>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>

...

Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.

*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>

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com');>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>>, Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thomas@rickert.net');>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>

...

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

+1

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com');>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>

*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>] *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thomas@rickert.net');>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Greg:

Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.

Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.

Best. Philip

*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*

*Virtualaw LLC*

*1155 F Street, NW*

*Suite 1050*

*Washington, DC 20004*

*202-559-8597/Direct*

*202-559-8750/Fax*

*202-255-6172/cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>; Thomas Rickert *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.

The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.

When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.

Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?

I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> wrote:

Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>>:

Dear Co-chairs

You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.

This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,

If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,

We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.

Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such

If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .

Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .

THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL

Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls

Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.

You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon

Regards

Kavouss

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

------------------------------

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

Seun, I respect the views you express, and I respect the concerns that the Board expresses about spilling the Board based on something that does not amount to a Bylaws violation. But I also respect the views of those who say that the ability to spill the Board – which is after all the real and ultimate enforcement measure in the sole designator model – becomes meaningless in the limited context where the proposed carve out would apply. We can complain about a few loud voices, but perhaps it would be better if we all tried to listen harder. Becky 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> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:30 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - Hi Becky, FWIW, what you indicate below has been the understanding since the concern was raised by Bruce. Steve has also just reiterate the view as well. However, let it be on record that others(including myself) have always raised similar concern, which even predates Bruce's comment. I have no idea what the goal of some in this process is anymore. If indeed the goal is to have an all inclusive and balanced MS that keeps the board accountable, then I don't think it should be difficult for anyone to be convinced that having 3 out of 7 SO/AC(yes because ICANN has more than 7 *distinct* community by structure) spill the entire board of an organisation like ICANN is not the right thing to do. It's so painful that a few participants in the CCWG have become quite vocal in this process in a manner that tends towards intimidating others. It is my hope that the co-chairs will be careful to identify distinct views among the pool of traffic. Regards On 19 Feb 2016 7:56 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws. 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://www.neustar.biz> From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> [cid:image001.png@01D16B17.90D93970]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. Best. Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=guusLuvtqD1j7nKqaUhBU6PnWk15AIgAcdJMrsbOcGU&s=Hzg0trn6-DcJzuYFDYd60Q_xbVgd4ZG9Vk6RIh2drL8&e=> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=MJs22P-0YNzWYDu_5Q-nQ1dsIt7buDnTZlAOr-En6e4&s=axarO_vYKK3j3fp8Zkv-4HEug4FDDEV1bP467C8Tgrk&e=>

May I ask – if we are reopening issues can we go back to the Member model? Or better yet, let’s go back to the original position which is that Advisory groups remain advisory and can’t be part of any decision making in the same way as SOs. Seriously – I have never participated in a process where decisions taken by a group are so continually subject to reopening and reconsideration. What is painful, Seun, is to see the entire process which many of us have labored over for nearly 18 months thrown out the window because an isolated Board plays the trump card at the 11th hour. That is not bottom-up development of policy …. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:31 PM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - Hi Becky, FWIW, what you indicate below has been the understanding since the concern was raised by Bruce. Steve has also just reiterate the view as well. However, let it be on record that others(including myself) have always raised similar concern, which even predates Bruce's comment. I have no idea what the goal of some in this process is anymore. If indeed the goal is to have an all inclusive and balanced MS that keeps the board accountable, then I don't think it should be difficult for anyone to be convinced that having 3 out of 7 SO/AC(yes because ICANN has more than 7 *distinct* community by structure) spill the entire board of an organisation like ICANN is not the right thing to do. It's so painful that a few participants in the CCWG have become quite vocal in this process in a manner that tends towards intimidating others. It is my hope that the co-chairs will be careful to identify distinct views among the pool of traffic. Regards On 19 Feb 2016 7:56 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > wrote: Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws. 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> / <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue +1 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue Greg: Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”. Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement. Best. Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention. The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall. When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well. Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out? I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all. Greg On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear Co-chairs You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon. This is an ALARMING SITUATION , If there is no consensus means there is no consensus , We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one. Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such If a mistake has occurred we should repair it . Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator . THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that. You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 _______________________________________________ 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 Seun With respect, you are wrong. This topic is only live now because 10 months ago the Board rejected the Member model (which in my view was far superior) which required change to the Designator model. I am quite serious that if the Board thinks this is a bad decision they are quite literally unravelling the entire skein of compromises. A cardinal rule of negoatiations is that nothing is agree to until everything is agreed to. As for critiquing the Board – I think Ed Morris said it precisely right. And as for “a number in the community” – nobody doubts that. But, as you are well aware, it was but a small vocal miniority and the overwhelming majority on the last call said precisely the opposite. That is why the Chairs were about to find a consensus view. There is no doubt at all that this is but an effort by that minority to upset the consensus. When you participate in a negotiation the process is as important as the substance. And it is imperative that when a process foul occurs, the yellow card be shown.. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - On 19 Feb 2016 9:04 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:

What is painful, Seun, is to see the entire process which many of us have labored over for nearly 18 months thrown out the window because an isolated Board plays the trump card at the 11th hour. That is not bottom-up development of policy ….

SO: I think the statement above is not accurate. The topic that is being discussed right now is not opening up the 18months work, but discussing an item that came up just this month. Secondly I keep wondering why we always seem to refer to board stalling the process when indeed a number of the community already voiced their concern. I think it's a tactic that diverts attention and begs one's Sympathy unnecessarily. I will strongly suggest we focus on the issue instead. Regards

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:31 PM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Hi Becky,

FWIW, what you indicate below has been the understanding since the concern was raised by Bruce. Steve has also just reiterate the view as well. However, let it be on record that others(including myself) have always raised similar concern, which even predates Bruce's comment.

I have no idea what the goal of some in this process is anymore. If indeed the goal is to have an all inclusive and balanced MS that keeps the board accountable, then I don't think it should be difficult for anyone to be convinced that having 3 out of 7 SO/AC(yes because ICANN has more than 7 *distinct* community by structure) spill the entire board of an organisation like ICANN is not the right thing to do.

It's so painful that a few participants in the CCWG have become quite vocal in this process in a manner that tends towards intimidating others. It is my hope that the co-chairs will be careful to identify distinct views among the pool of traffic.

Regards

On 19 Feb 2016 7:56 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > wrote:

...

Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board’s point is that the carve out – and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold – could apply where an IRP determines that the Board’s actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.

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>

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

+1

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Greg:

Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it “should serve as a warning to us all”.

Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community’s ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.

Best. Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:From%3Aaccountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.

The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.

When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.

Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?

I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:

Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >:

Dear Co-chairs

You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.

This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,

If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,

We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.

Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such

If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .

Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .

THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL

Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls

Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.

You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon

Regards

Kavouss

_______________________________________________ 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

________________________________

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

_______________________________________________ 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

Yes, my bad . 4 months ago .. Apologies P Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:03 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; 'Becky Burr' <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - Actually, I believe that it was just prior to the Dublin meeting, four months ago, that the Board rejected the Member model that would have given the ICANN community the full accountability powers available under California law. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:30 PM To: 'Seun Ojedeji' Cc: 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Greg Shatan'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; 'Becky Burr'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Phil Corwin Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - Dear Seun With respect, you are wrong. This topic is only live now because 10 months ago the Board rejected the Member model (which in my view was far superior) which required change to the Designator model. I am quite serious that if the Board thinks this is a bad decision they are quite literally unravelling the entire skein of compromises. A cardinal rule of negoatiations is that nothing is agree to until everything is agreed to. As for critiquing the Board - I think Ed Morris said it precisely right. And as for "a number in the community" - nobody doubts that. But, as you are well aware, it was but a small vocal miniority and the overwhelming majority on the last call said precisely the opposite. That is why the Chairs were about to find a consensus view. There is no doubt at all that this is but an effort by that minority to upset the consensus. When you participate in a negotiation the process is as important as the substance. And it is imperative that when a process foul occurs, the yellow card be shown.. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> >; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here - On 19 Feb 2016 9:04 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:

What is painful, Seun, is to see the entire process which many of us

have labored over for nearly 18 months thrown out the window because an isolated Board plays the trump card at the 11th hour. That is not bottom-up development of policy ..

SO: I think the statement above is not accurate. The topic that is being discussed right now is not opening up the 18months work, but discussing an item that came up just this month. Secondly I keep wondering why we always seem to refer to board stalling the process when indeed a number of the community already voiced their concern. I think it's a tactic that diverts attention and begs one's Sympathy unnecessarily. I will strongly suggest we focus on the issue instead. Regards

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com

<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ]

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:31 PM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] what the Board is objecting to here -

Hi Becky,

FWIW, what you indicate below has been the understanding since the concern was raised by Bruce. Steve has also just reiterate the view as well. However, let it be on record that others(including myself) have always raised similar concern, which even predates Bruce's comment.

I have no idea what the goal of some in this process is anymore. If indeed the goal is to have an all inclusive and balanced MS that keeps the board accountable, then I don't think it should be difficult for anyone to be convinced that having 3 out of 7 SO/AC(yes because ICANN has more than 7 *distinct* community by structure) spill the entire board of an organisation like ICANN is not the right thing to do.

It's so painful that a few participants in the CCWG have become quite vocal in this process in a manner that tends towards intimidating others. It is my hope that the co-chairs will be careful to identify distinct views among the pool of traffic.

Regards

On 19 Feb 2016 7:56 p.m., "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > wrote:

...

Just for the sake of absolute precision, I think the Board's point is

that the carve out - and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold - could apply where an IRP determines that the Board's actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws. I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.

...

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>

...

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >

...

Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

+1

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:52 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

Greg:

Assuming that the new Board position is indeed a response to a minority position of a few GAC members, I am in full agreement that it "should serve as a warning to us all".

Indeed, it emphasizes exactly why the GAC should not be able to block the community's ability to hold the Board accountable for implementing GAC consensus advice that the community feels is outside the scope of the Bylaws or Mission Statement.

Best. Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:From%3Aaccountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:38 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Carve-out issue

It is alarming that a few GAC members could seek to undo a carefully balanced compromise. And even more alarming that those few GAC members could so quickly trigger a Board intervention.

The carve-out is balanced against the concerns of other stakeholders with regard to (i) the proposed supermajority threshold for Board rejection of GAC advice and (ii) the GAC's overall role as a decisional participant in the Empowered Community, rather than its traditional advisory capacity. The carve-out itself underwent a compromise, requiring the Community to go through an IRP before exercising the power of Board recall.

When one pulls on one end of a compromise, the other end tends to move as well.

Do other stakeholders need to send countervailing warnings? Will the Board respond as quickly? Do we want to find out?

I think this extraordinary response to a minority report should serve as a warning to us all.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:

Please kindly confirm and acknowledge recipt of wanrning message

Regards

Kavouss

2016-02-19 18:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >:

Dear Co-chairs

You have seen the concerns of 11 Governments which would certainly be echoed by other gouvernements soon.

This is an ALARMING SITUATION ,

If there is no consensus means there is no consensus ,

We could not favour one community in disfavouring another one.

Perhaps it was hoped that the people could join the consensus but it does not come up as such

If a mistake has occurred we should repair it .

Howmany times we have changed our concept from Voluntry Model to Sole member from Sole Member to Sole designator .

THE ISSUE IS CRITICAL

Pls do not rush to publish the report as being sent to the chartering organization just hold on for few more days untill your 26 feb. calls

Try to find out some solution including going back to the initial stage of REC. 11 without no carve-out and with two options of simple majority and 2/3 theshold and rediscuss that.

You can not ignor the growing concerns of several governments and would certainly be further grown up soon

Regards

Kavouss

_______________________________________________ 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

________________________________

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

_______________________________________________ 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

_____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16

Bruce Thanks for this. Your comment to the end looks like a significant expansion of AC influence compared with today. Is that your intention? Cheers Jordan On Saturday, 20 February 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

Hello Becky,

...

...

I think the Board's point is that the carve out - and hence the 3 SO/AC threshold - could apply where an IRP determines that the Board's actions in response to GAC Advice contravene the Bylaws.

Correct - this was the position I provided to the list over a week ago, and was subject to discussion in the CCWG call. The Board remains in support of that position.

This position could apply for any of the SOs or ACs. E.g. if the Board followed ALAC advice, and the IRP found this was in contravention of the bylaws, than a threshold of 3 SOs and ACs would be sufficient to remove the Board, if the Board did not follow the determination of the IRP.

...

...

I think what worries the Board is that the notion that the Board could be recalled by 3 SO/AC combination for action that DOES NOT contravene the Bylaws.

Correct. There has been significant discussion of this in the past week on the Board's mailing list since the latest text was developed for the CCWG report. There was a Board Information call a little over 12 hours ago that I was not able to attend, and after that call Steve sent his note.

The prevailing view at the moment is that it should require 4 SOs or ACs to remove the Board in situations when the Board is acting within its bylaws.

As part of the discussion of whether it was OK to reduce the threshold from 4 to 3, in the case when the Board accepted GAC advice that is within the bylaws, the Board has also started to wonder whether the carve out idea for one of the advisory committees is really appropriate in a multi-stakeholder model.

This has opened up a discussion amongst Board members on whether we should really be aiming to treat the advice from all advisory committees in a similar way. e.g. have the same threshold for rejecting the advice from an advisory committee, and have the same procedure for meeting with an advisory committee when the advice is rejected. Any advice from an advisory committee requesting that the Board take action should be within the scope of ICANN's mission, and within the scope of the advisory committee's role as defined in the bylaws.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity